Supreme Court Ends Chevron Rule, Limiting Regulators
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has overturned the decades-old Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, a key doctrine that allowed federal regulators to interpret unclear laws. This landmark decision will significantly limit the power of environmental, consumer, and financial watchdog agencies.
The case stemmed from a dispute over a fishing-industry regulation. The court’s conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the Chevron decision improperly shifted the power to interpret the law from the judiciary to federal agencies. Under Chevron, courts were required to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Roberts wrote that Chevron was a “judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”
The court’s liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan criticizing the majority for dismantling a longstanding precedent vital to administrative governance and accusing them of seeking power.
This ruling marks a victory for those opposing expansive government regulation, particularly conservative groups who have criticized Chevron as enabling liberal administrations to justify broad regulations. For example, the Obama administration used Chevron to support a rule promoting renewable power adoption by states, and the Biden administration has argued for deference to regulators in expanding oversight of waterways.
The decision raises significant questions about existing regulations and the future authority of agencies, especially in new areas like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. It shifts more responsibility to Congress to address policy issues directly and empowers lower-court judges to limit regulators when they exceed their authority.
The ruling keeps past decisions that relied on Chevron intact but signals a significant shift in judicial approach. The Chevron doctrine, initially seen as a victory for the deregulatory agenda of the EPA under Anne Gorsuch Burford, had provided flexibility in the administrative process and was praised by Justice Antonin Scalia in 1989. However, its reliance by liberal administrations for regulatory expansions eventually led to conservative opposition.
The case in question involved a federal requirement that some herring boats must have government-approved observers onboard at the fishermen’s expense, estimated at $710 daily. Fishing companies sued, arguing that Congress did not authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to impose these costs. Two federal appeals courts upheld the rule as a reasonable interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs marine fisheries management in federal waters.
The Supreme Court’s ruling affects cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, emphasizing the court’s continuing trend of curtailing agency authority. This decision not only impacts current regulations but also shapes the future landscape of federal oversight in emerging industries.