The Shift in US Administrative Law

Understanding Judicial Deference to Agencies

For decades, a foundational principle of US administrative law was judicial deference to administrative agencies. This doctrine guided how courts approached an agency’s interpretation of a statute it was tasked with enforcing. The core idea was that courts would show respect for the specialized knowledge and experience of agencies when they interpreted ambiguous or complex statutory language. This approach was seen as a way to promote uniformity and leverage the technical expertise of the executive branch.

The Rise and Fall of Chevron Deference

The most significant and widely known form of judicial deference was the Chevron deference, established by the 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. This doctrine introduced a two-step framework for courts to follow when reviewing an agency’s statutory interpretation:

1. Step 1: The court first determines if Congress has directly addressed the precise issue in the statute. If the statutory language is clear, the court must follow that clear congressional intent.
2. Step 2: If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the matter, the court moves to the second step, asking if the agency’s interpretation of the statute is “permissible” or “reasonable”. If it is, the court had to uphold the agency’s interpretation, even if the court itself might have preferred a different reading.

This framework was a powerful tool that allowed agencies like the Department of Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency to issue regulations with a lower burden of proof in court challenges. Over four decades, it became a cornerstone of administrative law, influencing thousands of decisions.

The Overturning of Chevron Deference

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which officially overruled Chevron deference. The Court reasoned that the Chevron doctrine was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires courts to “decide all relevant questions of law”. The decision reasserts the principle that it is the court’s responsibility to “say what the law is,” without simply bending to an agency’s interpretation.

This historic shift means that courts can no longer give an agency’s interpretation the “tie” in close cases just because the interpretation is permissible. Instead, courts must exercise their independent judgment and determine the “best” reading of a statute.

What Happens Next? The Impact on Administrative Law

The overturning of Chevron marks a dramatic change. Regulated businesses and individuals now have a greater opportunity to challenge agency regulations that may have been difficult to overturn in the past. However, the decision does not completely eliminate judicial deference. The Court clarified that deference based on an agency’s factual and technical expertise may still be appropriate. Other doctrines, such as Skidmore deference, which gives weight to an agency’s interpretation based on its thoroughness, reasoning, and consistency, still apply.

Legal experts predict this will force legislatures to be more specific in their laws, potentially leading to more legislative gridlock. On the other hand, proponents argue it returns important policy decisions to the courts and legislatures, reducing what some see as the “tyranny of the Administrative State”. While the full ramifications will take years to play out, the legal landscape for administrative law has been fundamentally altered.

Deference Doctrine	Key Principle	Status (Post-June 2024)
Chevron Deference	Courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.	Overturned.
Skidmore Deference	Courts give an agency’s interpretation persuasive weight based on its thoroughness and reasoning.	Still applicable.
Auer Deference	Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.	Has been limited but not overruled; still a topic of debate.

Summary of Key Takeaways

1. End of Chevron: The Supreme Court has overturned the foundational Chevron deference, ending the practice of courts deferring to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
2. Return to Courts: This decision re-emphasizes that it is the court’s role to interpret the law and determine its “best” meaning, rather than relying on agency interpretations.
3. Continued Deference to Expertise: While legal deference has changed, courts may still respect an agency’s factual and technical expertise in certain areas. Doctrines like Skidmore deference remain intact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Chevron and Skidmore deference?

Chevron deference was a binding rule that required courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Skidmore deference, which still exists, is a less rigid standard where courts consider an agency’s interpretation based on its power to persuade, taking into account factors like thoroughness and consistency.

Does this mean all deference to agencies is gone?

No. The recent Supreme Court decision specifically overturned Chevron deference, which applied to statutory interpretations. However, courts may still give deference to an agency’s factual findings, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Will this change affect current regulations?

The Supreme Court’s decision clarified that past cases relying on Chevron deference remain valid, but it opens the door for new legal challenges against current and future agency regulations.

Is this related to the “major questions” doctrine?

Yes, the overturning of Chevron is a separate, but related, development. The “major questions” doctrine, which has been used in recent years, also curtails agency authority by requiring clear congressional authorization for regulations on issues of major political or economic significance.

– Your Legal Portal Team

Judicial deference, administrative law, Chevron deference, Loper Bright Enterprises, Relentless, Inc., Supreme Court, statutory interpretation, federal agencies, separation of powers, Administrative Procedure Act, Skidmore deference, Auer deference, regulatory law, US law, legal precedent, federal courts, administrative state, rulemaking, legal expert, US legal system, administrative adjudication, federal regulations