Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court held oral arguments reflecting on the possibility of discarding the Chevron doctrine. The result of these discussions could have far-reaching implications for the American legal system.
The Chevron doctrine refers to the legal standard used by courts when interpreting unclear legislation that falls under a federal agency’s remit. If, in the eyes of the court, an agency’s interpretation of such a statute is reasonable, the court will affirm the agency’s interpretation. This has sparked a constitutional debate. Challengers argue that this “deference” gives away judicial power to determine what the law says.
A particularly troubling idea emerged during the Supreme Court discussions. Justice Neil Gorsuch presented the Chevron doctrine as an issue for individuals battling the government. He had found no case “where Chevron wound up benefitting those kinds of people,” and believed that Chevron is often used against individuals, favoring the government.
Funnily enough, the Supreme Court only last year overturned a loan forgiveness plan for millions of student borrowers. The court disagreed with the Education Department’s interpretation of the student-loan statute, despite having the power to defer to the agency’s interpretation as permitted by the Chevron doctrine. This could have favoured the very groups Gorsuch claimed Chevron failed.
Gorsuch’s position seems to showcase a misunderstanding about the law’s function. While he focused on how the doctrine would apply in a lawsuit, the reality is that legal rules have their most significant impacts in disputes that do not reach a courtroom. These so-called “shadows of the law” often shape our behavior more than any individual lawsuit outcome might.
The problematic interpretation of the Chevron doctrine extends beyond individual cases. Attorney Paul Clement argued against the Chevron Doctrine suggesting that government agencies are not very good at statutory interpretation because they often lose Supreme Court Cases. Such cases reflect strategic choice and are not indicative of the entire spectrum of activities that never reach the court.
The Chevron doctrine is a rule rather than a law. As such, it determines how certain types of cases are decided. To fully understand and assess its impact, we need to consider its place as a ground rule affecting people and agencies alike. It affords government agencies much-needed room for manoeuvre when dealing with unclear legislation, whilst also ensuring they remain within reasonable boundaries.
These boundaries act as rules of engagement for both the public and the government institutions. They result in millions of cases reaching a resolution out of court, benefiting countless individuals. It is such instances, unseen by the public eye, that truly demonstrate the value of the Chevron doctrine.
Ironically, the very populations Gorsuch was concerned about potentially benefit from such a doctrine. Agencies work with these doctrines to fulfil their mandates, handling immense demands with a finite pool of resources. Issues with US immigration and benefits policies are often a result of deficiencies within the statutes themselves, rather than the application of rules like Chevron.
Limiting agencies’ ability to operate under ambiguous laws by enforcing stricter interpretations will likely exacerbate these issues. It is important to keep in mind that the judiciary can’t always recognize real-world policy consequences due to its institutional structure.
The cases serving as the focal point for these discussions are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce.
Any decisions in these cases could have far-reaching implications for how the Chevron doctrine is applied and how it influences the functioning of our legal system.
This analysis was written by Keith Bradley, a partner and co-chair of the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Squire Patton Boggs, specializing in challenges to regulatory policy.