Supreme Court smashes power of the administrative state in historic Chevron case
The nation’s top court dramatically clawed back power from federal regulators in a tectonic ruling Friday that KO’d decades of precedent and could affect everything from the environment to AI and healthcare.
The Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, overturned the historic 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, which had called for judicial deference to agencies in situations where the law is unclear.
The move will now make it much easier for the courts to overrule regulations and for judges to issue their best interpretation of the law on a slew of matters.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
“Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it,” he added.
Justice Elena Kagan authored the dissent, which was backed by her two fellow liberal justices, and read it aloud on Friday — which is done in rare circumstances of vehement disagreement.
She fretted that giving the judiciary more leeway in interpreting the statutory authority of federal regulations would render the courts the key decision-makers in areas where they are poorly equipped.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,’’ Kagan groused.
“As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.
“It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values,” she wrote. “It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject because there are always gaps and ambiguities in regulatory statutes, and often of great import.”
She contended federal regulators have far more expertise on matters such as AI, healthcare, the environment and other issues than the courts do.
Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a concurring opinion for the majority gloating over the ruling. His mother helmed the EPA during the Reagan administration.
“Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding,” he wrote.
“[Chevron deference] represents a grave anomaly when viewed against the sweep of historic judicial practice. The decision undermines core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing.”
Conservative legal activists long had the Chevron deference in their crosshairs, grumbling that the 1984 decision reduced checks on federal regulators and bureaucracy.
Friday’s decision further illustrates the high court’s willingness to deviate from precedent it feels was poorly construed.
In 2022, the Supreme Court roiled the nation by overturning precedents first set in Roe v. Wade in 1973 guaranteeing a woman’s federal right to an abortion.
On Friday Roberts took note of the court’s doctrine of adhering to precedent — but called Chevron “unworkable.”
“Courts need not and under the APA [Administration Procedure Act] may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron is overruled,” Roberts wrote.
“In truth, Chevron’s justifying presumption is, as members of this court have often recognized, a fiction,” he later added. “The experience of the last 40 years has thus done little to rehabilitate Chevron.”
At issue were lawsuits filed by two herring fishermen groups against a Commerce Department policy compelling them to pay salaries of the government officials who observe them.
As a result of the decision, the lower courts must now reevaluate those lawsuits based on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Chevron case.
