Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

Today, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in a 6-3 decision in Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (from which Justice Jackson recused herself). The Chevron doctrine has directed courts to respect agency authority for 40 years and has become a pillar of administrative law. However, the doctrine has increasingly been villainized by anti-regulatory interests, which have blamed the decision for contributing to the growth of the administrative state.

What You Need to Know

• What Was Before the Court: Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or more narrowly clarify whether statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute constitutes an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
• What Chevron Said: In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute that it administers when the statute is ambiguous or silent as to an issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. The Chevron doctrine has served an important role over the past four decades in directing courts to respect agency authority and enabling federal agencies with the necessary expertise to understand and deliberate on the specialized areas within the agencies' purview.
• Background: Our federal government works by having Congress pass and the President sign into law broad legislation, which is then interpreted by federal agencies. Congress does not have the time, expertise, or clairvoyance to legislate on every possible detailed aspect of health policy, workplace safety, social security benefits administration, food and drug safety, land use, environmental policy, etc. Instead, Congress relies on federal agencies to interpret federal statutes and issue more detailed regulations to achieve the objectives it sets out. The Chevron doctrine supports agencies as they use their expertise to serve the American people and, in the course of doing so, must interpret statutory language that is at times unclear.
• What the Court Decided: The Court overruled Chevron and held that the Administrative Procedures Act, which prescribes the procedures for agency rule making, requires that courts exercise their independent judgment in resolving statutory ambiguities, that ambiguities are not delegations to agencies, and therefore no deference is due an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers.
• Practical Effect: Today’s decision is yet another instance in which this Court has chosen to strengthen the power of the federal judiciary at the expense of the other branches. As Justice Kagan observed in her dissent, “In one feel swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.” The majority’s decision invites courts to second-guess agency experts and upend any federal agency rule that does not align with the judge’s own policy preferences. The Court did not need to go so far. Both Loper Bright and Relentless asked the Court to decide a much narrower question—whether the statutory language authorized the rule at issue. However, the Court chose only to review the Chevron challenge, creating a situation in which the Court’s decision could have far-reaching effects even if it did not resolve the specific dispute of the parties before it. Importantly, the majority clarified that the decision in these cases, “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework,” leaving in place the holdings cases in which the Court previously found agency action lawful. Importantly, the majority clarified that the decision in these cases, “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework,” leaving in place holdings in cases in which the Court previously found agency action lawful.