Chevron deference under attack
Chevron Deference Under Attack
What is Chevron Deference?
Chevron deference is a principle from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. that directs courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers.
Chevron established a two-step test:
Step 1: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue?
If yes, courts must give effect to Congress’s clear intent.
Step 2: If the statute is ambiguous, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?
If yes, courts defer to the agency.
Why Is Chevron Deference Under Attack?
Over time, courts and commentators have criticized Chevron for:
Giving agencies too much power in interpreting laws.
Undermining judicial authority and separation of powers.
Being applied too broadly to complex or political questions.
Contributing to administrative overreach.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have limited, refined, or questioned Chevron’s scope.
🔍 Key Cases Illustrating Attacks on Chevron Deference
1. King v. Burwell (2015)
Citation: 576 U.S. 473
Facts:
The Court considered whether tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) applied to insurance exchanges established by the federal government.
Issue:
Should Chevron deference apply to this major question affecting billions in tax credits?
Held:
The Court declined to defer to the IRS’s interpretation, reasoning that the issue was of “deep economic and political significance” and that Congress would not delegate such decisions implicitly.
Significance:
Introduced the “major questions doctrine”, limiting Chevron where issues have vast significance.
Marked a departure from broad Chevron deference.
2. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Citation: 576 U.S. 743
Facts:
EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to regulate power plant emissions without considering costs in deciding to regulate.
Issue:
Did the Court owe Chevron deference to EPA’s interpretation?
Held:
No. The Court found EPA’s failure to consider costs was unreasonable and rejected deference.
Significance:
Emphasized courts will reject agency interpretations that are unreasonable or disregard important factors.
Signaled more scrutiny over agency policy choices under Chevron.
3. Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016)
Citation: 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir.)
Facts:
The court refused to apply Chevron deference to an immigration agency’s interpretation of a statute.
Issue:
Should Chevron apply to an agency’s interpretation of a statute where the agency had no formal adjudicative or rulemaking procedures?
Held:
No. The court held Chevron should apply only when agencies act with “the force of law” after formal procedures.
Significance:
Questioned the scope of Chevron deference based on agency procedure.
Influential in debates about limiting Chevron.
4. Kisor v. Wilkie (2019)
Citation: 139 S. Ct. 2400
Facts:
The Court examined whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations (Auer deference).
Issue:
Should courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules?
Held:
The Court upheld Auer deference but imposed stringent limits on when it applies.
Significance:
Though not directly Chevron, it reflects the Court’s growing skepticism about deference doctrines.
Suggests courts will carefully police agency interpretations.
5. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2023)
Citation: No. 22-451 (pending Supreme Court decision as of 2023)
Facts:
Challenging whether Chevron applies to agency interpretations impacting significant economic interests.
Issue:
Will the Court further limit Chevron in this case?
Significance:
Seen as a potential landmark case to clarify or restrict Chevron further.
Reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny.
6. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
Citation: 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Facts:
The EPA issued the Clean Power Plan regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Issue:
Did the EPA have clear congressional authorization?
Held:
The Court struck down the EPA’s plan, holding that agencies need clear congressional authorization for major regulatory actions (reaffirming the major questions doctrine).
Significance:
This decision represents a major blow to Chevron deference, especially on broad regulatory authority.
Courts require clear congressional mandate before deferring.
✅ Summary of Chevron Under Attack:
Major Questions Doctrine: Courts will not defer to agencies on issues with vast economic or political significance unless Congress clearly authorized.
Heightened Scrutiny: Courts increasingly scrutinize agency interpretations for reasonableness and procedural rigor.
Limits Based on Agency Procedures: Chevron may not apply if agency interpretations lack formal rulemaking or adjudication.
Auer Deference Impact: Related deference doctrines are also limited, indicating a trend toward less deference.
Recent cases show a growing judicial willingness to assert authority over agency interpretations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments