The US Supreme Court has overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent in a decision that curtails the regulatory authority of federal agencies. The 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will make it more difficult for agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations without explicit Congressional approval.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the court’s opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. In contrast, Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Chevron doctrine allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous laws as long as their interpretations were reasonable. However, the Roberts court concluded that a statutory ambiguity does not imply a congressional intent for an agency—rather than a court—to resolve the interpretive question. The ruling stated, “Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron‘s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”
The decision also highlighted that such ambiguities are especially critical when they pertain to the scope of an agency’s own power, a scenario where deference to the agency is least appropriate.
Kagan’s Dissent: Judicial Overreach
The Loper Bright case challenged a rule enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service, with lower courts applying the Chevron framework to rule in favor of the government.
In her dissent, Kagan argued that Chevron has been integral to the functioning of modern government by supporting regulatory efforts across various domains, including environmental protection, food safety, and financial market regulation. Kagan wrote that Congress typically prefers agencies over courts to resolve statutory ambiguities due to agencies’ expertise and specialized competence.
Kagan criticized the court’s ruling for transferring interpretive power from agencies to courts, stating, “A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” She added that the court previously encroached on agency decisions regarding workplace health, climate change, and student loans, and now seeks to wield power over all interpretations of regulatory law.
Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge lambasted the decision, arguing that it establishes judicial supremacy over legislative and executive branches. Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the organization, argued that no consumer protection is secure following this ruling. Feld highlighted the impracticality of Congress continually updating laws to accommodate new technologies and business practices.
The decision represents a significant shift in administrative law and regulatory practice, undercutting the longstanding Chevron deference that allowed federal agencies more interpretative flexibility.