In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old precedent of Chevron deference, sharply curtailing the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer. The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is expected to have far-reaching effects across the country as courts will now rely on their interpretations of ambiguous laws.
“Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority opinion.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices overturned their decision in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which dictates that courts should defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes they administer.
Roberts expressed concern over the extensive power granted to administrative agencies.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote. “Courts do. The Framers, as noted, anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment.”
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, argued in favor of maintaining the Chevron deference.
“This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent,” Kagan wrote. “Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion stating, “Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.”
Gorsuch highlighted that this decision signals a return to traditional interpretative rules that have guided the federal judiciary since the nation’s inception.
“And all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor,” Gorsuch wrote.
Loper Bright case
The case originated when Loper Bright Enterprises, a family-owned fishing business, challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation requiring fishing companies to pay for the costs of monitoring compliance with federal regulations.
This rule was established under the authority granted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The act mandates that petitioners and other vessel owners accommodate federal observers on board to monitor compliance with numerous federal regulations. Loper argued NMFS had overstepped its bounds by requiring them to pay the salaries of these government-mandated monitors, saying they occupy valuable space on their vessels and oversee their operations.
According to court documents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the government, citing the Chevron deference. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in November 2022. The case was argued on Jan. 17 and the justices considered this case along with Relentless v. Department of Commerce to address the Chevron question.
Reactions
The Supreme Court’s decision not only impacts the fishing industry but also has broader implications for how federal agencies implement and interpret regulations across various sectors.
Travis Cushman, deputy general counsel for the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), said the most significant outcome of the case is restoring the balance of power at the federal level. “The crucial change is that agencies will no longer determine the extent of their own authority,” Cushman said. “So many regulations that we believe—whether it’s USDA, EPA, or Labor—push the bounds of what Congress intended, and this will force those agencies to really evaluate how much authority they have to regulate and allow us to challenge them when they’ve gone too far.”
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which filed an amicus brief in the case, applauded the decision, stating it puts Congress “in the driver’s seat for crafting policy.”
“Our elected officials in Congress should be making our laws, not unelected bureaucrats at federal agencies,” said NCBA President Mark Eisele. “Cattle producers have experienced numerous instances of federal agencies enacting overreaching regulations on our farms and ranches, exceeding their authority granted by Congress.”
Environmental organizations lambasted the decision, saying it chips away at environmental regulations and protections.
“The conservative justices are aggressively reshaping the foundations of our government so that the President and Congress have less power to protect the public, and corporations have more power to challenge regulations in search of profits,” Earthjustice Senior Vice President for Programs Sambhav Sankar said. “This ruling threatens the legitimacy of hundreds of regulations that keep us safe, protect our homes and environment, and create a level playing field for businesses to compete on.”
Southern Environmental Law Center’s Litigation Director Kym Meyer expressed concern, stating, “Today’s ruling sidelines agency expertise, shifting power to judges who lack the specialized knowledge of agency staff immersed in the science, financial principles, and safety concerns critical to federal agencies.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
