Supreme Court Rejects Chevron Deference to Federal Agencies
Landmark Ruling Curtails Agency Power
Justices Overturn Decades-Old Precedent
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (2004) precedent, which required courts to defer to the reasonable interpretations of federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutes. The 6-3 ruling came in one of three cases during the current term seeking to curtail the power of federal agencies, a key priority of the conservative legal movement.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion in the case, argued that Chevron deference has led to excessive agency power and "shocks to the system." He stated, "Chevron has been used to uphold agency actions that went far beyond the bounds of what Congress could have authorized."
Federal courts have used the Chevron doctrine for decades to defer to agencies' interpretations of laws when those laws are ambiguous. However, conservative justices have increasingly criticized the doctrine, arguing that it has allowed agencies to overstep their authority by issuing regulations that are not supported by the underlying statutes.
The court's ruling in this case and two related cases is a significant victory for the conservative legal movement, which has long aimed to rein in the power of federal agencies. It remains to be seen how this ruling will impact the regulatory landscape going forward, but it is likely to make it more difficult for agencies to issue regulations that are not clearly authorized by Congress.
Comments