Loper Bright: US Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Deference

The opinion of the Court was delivered by the Chief Justice and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch also writing concurring opinions. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor and, in the Relentless case, by Justice Jackson, who took no part in the Loper Bright case itself.

The background

Under the doctrine set out in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, courts were sometimes required to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes the agency administers, even where the court read the statute differently. The cases before the Court were brought by businesses operating vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery, challenging a National Marine Fisheries Service rule made under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the lower courts had applied Chevron to uphold the rule.

What the Court decided

The Court held that Chevron cannot be reconciled with the Administrative Procedure Act, which directs reviewing courts to decide all relevant questions of law. Courts may still take account of an agency's interpretation and expertise, which may have power to persuade, and where the best reading of a statute is that it delegates discretionary authority to an agency, courts must respect that delegation while fixing its boundaries and ensuring the agency acts within them.

The Court also said it was not calling into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful remain subject to statutory stare decisis, and reliance on Chevron alone is not a sufficient reason to overrule them.

What it means

Without Chevron deference, regulated businesses challenging federal rules will have their statutory arguments decided by courts afresh rather than measured against the agency's reasonable reading. Agencies across financial services, energy, health, labour and communications may find that new rules face closer judicial scrutiny, while past decisions upholding particular rules are protected by stare decisis. The case record is available on the Supreme Court docket.

Sources

• Supreme Court of the United States: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, slip opinion
• Supreme Court of the United States: Docket No. 22-451