SCOTUS Tosses ‘Chevron Deference’ That Empower Federal Bureaucracy’s Legal Interpretations

Last updated on August 7th, 2024 at 04:28 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court, on Friday, ruled 6-3 against a long-standing judicial doctrine referred to as the “Chevron deference,” which has historically benefitted the U.S. federal bureaucracy in legal challenges.

This “Chevron deference” derives its name from the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The case centered around differing interpretations of the 1977 Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court concluded that courts should construe an executive branch agency’s interpretation of a law as the correct interpretation if it is addressing an ambiguity in the law through a “permissible construction of the statute.”

Critics of the “Chevron deference” have long argued that it gives unelected officials the ability to go beyond the laws Congress has actually passed, and find interpretations that expand their power.

Litigants challenged this “Chevron deference” in a pair of cases they argued before the high court in January; Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. In both cases, the plaintiffs had argued the Commerce Department had exceeded their regulatory authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion ruling against “Chevron difference,” and was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson took the dissenting view in favor of preserving this “Chevron deference” principle.

The majority ruled that the deference to federal bureaucrats established in the 1984 Chevron case “cannot be squared with” the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of 1946, which broadly states that executive branch agencies must have clear authorization from Congress to set regulations, and states the courts and not the federal agencies should have the final say when interpreting ambiguities in law.

“Neither Chevron nor any subsequent decision of the Court attempted to reconcile its framework with the APA,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states.

Kagan, authoring the dissenting view, argued that ambiguities in the laws Congress passes implicitly delegate the responsibility of making interpretations to the executive branch. She also contended that “judges are not experts” but that bureaucrats are, and that “Chevron” is “about respecting that allocation of responsibility.”

The court’s decision today shifts the responsibility for legal interpretations to be in line with the APA.

The APA has already played a role in recent cases, including those challenges federal rule-making and legal interpretations by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in implementing federal gun control measures.

In a June 13 ruling, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas concluded that an ATF rule concerning firearm stabilizing braces went beyond its express rulemaking powers and was therefore at odds with the APA. O’Connor vacated this ATF rule.

The following day, the Supreme Court threw out another ATF rule barring access to bump stocks. Gun rights activists had challenged that bump stock rule under the APA.

Although the “Chevron deference” had applied in many different settings over the years gun rights advocates were quick to count Friday’s Supreme Court decision as a win for their particular cause.

“For 40 years, the Chevron precedent allowed ATF and other executive agencies to run amok and interpret the law arbitrarily to the detriment of our natural rights,” the Firearms Policy Coalition wrote in a press statement. “This is a huge victory against the disarmament regime.”

The Biden White House, by contrast, shared their disappointment with the ruling.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the ruling “is yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards.”

“Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to block common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers,” she added.