SCOTUS Limits Regulatory Power: The End of Chevron Doctrine

In 1984, the Supreme Court established a precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This ruling was intended to acknowledge the expertise of regulatory agencies, particularly in complex areas like environmental regulation. However, over the years, this deference led to an expansion of executive power, as courts increasingly accepted agency interpretations without sufficient scrutiny. In a recent 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron, asserting that it conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ruling emphasized that courts are not obligated to defer to agency interpretations simply due to statutory ambiguity. Legal experts, such as Jonathan Adler, have noted that while the ruling does not eliminate consideration of agency interpretations, it shifts the standard from deference to respect. This change could restore a degree of accountability to the legislative process, as Congress has often delegated significant authority to executive agencies, allowing them to create rules with the force of law. The implications of this ruling may lead to a reevaluation of how agencies operate and how much power they wield in interpreting laws. The decision has sparked discussions about the potential political ramifications, with some lawmakers expressing concern that increased accountability could impact their electoral prospects. The ruling represents a significant shift in the balance of power between the branches of government, aiming to rein in the expansive authority that agencies have accumulated over the past four decades. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, potentially reshaping the relationship between Congress, the courts, and regulatory agencies moving forward.