The US Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the landmark Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in the landscape of agency rulemaking and legal challenges. The 6-3 ruling dismantles the precedent established in the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which had granted agencies the leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes, provided their interpretations were reasonable. Without this judicial deference, the onus now falls on lower courts to assess the validity of regulations independently, potentially leading to increased judicial overturn of agency actions.
This decision aligns with a broader trend of the Supreme Court curbing the powers of administrative agencies. The court has employed the “major questions doctrine” in recent years to invalidate significant regulatory actions such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Covid vaccination rule. Legal experts suggest that the end of Chevron deference will result in more rigorous litigation against government regulations. Kevin Minoli of Alston & Bird stated, “Today’s decision unquestionably means that more government regulations will be overturned by the courts.”
Experts believe that this shift could lead to agencies exercising greater caution in formulating new regulations. William Buzbee from Georgetown University noted that agencies might now spend more time quoting statutory text rather than explaining the rationale behind their regulatory decisions. This cautious approach may slow down the rulemaking process and weaken the robustness of regulations.
Despite the removal of Chevron deference, administrative law scholar Jeffrey Lubbers pointed out that this change alone might not trigger a major upheaval. “The major questions doctrine already relegated Chevron to minor questions,” he said. Nevertheless, the ruling adds to a series of judicial decisions that collectively reduce government agencies’ ability to address pressing issues related to health, safety, and the environment.
The case illustrating this shift is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, U.S., No. 22-451. For more detailed information, you can read the full article on the Bloomberg Law website.