Federal judges reviewing agency actions have largely omitted from their rulings an 80-year-old precedent calling for a mild form of deference to the government in the month since the US Supreme Court struck down the more powerful Chevron doctrine.
The high court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended the requirement that courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, while ostensibly leaving available Skidmore deference—which calls on courts to give weight to agency stances according to their persuasiveness.
However, federal courts didn’t refer to 1944’s Skidmore v. Swift & Co. in 19 of 20 rulings on agency actions since the Loper decision. This limited engagement suggests that Skidmore deference may not serve as a prominent fallback for reviewing and interpreting agency decisions in the near future.
According to Bloomberg Law, by not invoking Skidmore, courts might be signaling a shift towards a more scrutinizing stance on agency decisions, potentially impacting the efficiency and predictability of administrative rulemaking. Consequently, the federal government may lose ground in legal battles over regulatory interpretations and enforcement, challenging their ability to effectively implement policy.