Future of Chevron deference
What is Chevron Deference?
Chevron established a two-step framework for courts reviewing agency statutory interpretation:
Step One: If Congress’s intent on the specific issue is clear, courts must give effect to that intent.
Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Chevron deference gives agencies flexibility and acknowledges their expertise, but courts retain a supervisory role.
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts:
The case concerned the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s requirements for regulating air pollution.
Key Legal Issue:
Should courts defer to the EPA’s interpretation of ambiguous statutory language regarding pollution control?
Explanation:
The Supreme Court held that when a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable. This case established the doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretations and has guided administrative law ever since.
Outcome:
Chevron firmly entrenched the principle that agencies have authority to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes, promoting consistent policy implementation by experts.
2. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Facts:
This case involved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and whether subsidies were available for health insurance purchased on federal exchanges.
Key Legal Issue:
Should courts apply Chevron deference to the IRS’s interpretation of the ACA’s statutory language?
Explanation:
The Court declined to apply Chevron deference because the issue was of “deep economic and political significance”, suggesting that courts should interpret such statutes themselves rather than defer to agencies.
Outcome:
This case signaled that Chevron might not apply in all contexts, especially for major policy questions. The Court effectively carved out an exception for issues of great significance.
3. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Facts:
The issue was whether Customs rulings warranted Chevron deference.
Key Legal Issue:
What level of deference should be given to agency interpretations that are not made through formal rulemaking or adjudication?
Explanation:
The Court introduced the concept of “Skidmore deference”, a lesser form of deference based on the agency’s persuasiveness and expertise, not automatic Chevron deference. Only when Congress explicitly authorizes agencies to interpret statutes with force of law (e.g., through formal procedures) does Chevron apply.
Outcome:
This decision refined Chevron by limiting its reach and emphasizing the context and formality of agency action.
4. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022)
Facts:
The EPA attempted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.
Key Legal Issue:
Does Chevron deference apply to major regulatory actions that have vast economic and political significance?
Explanation:
The Supreme Court rejected Chevron deference for the EPA’s broad regulatory approach, invoking the “major questions doctrine.” The Court held that in cases involving significant policy decisions, courts should not defer to agency interpretations unless Congress clearly authorized the agency’s power.
Outcome:
This ruling marks a significant limitation on Chevron deference, emphasizing that agencies need clear congressional authorization for major regulatory actions.
5. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 65 F.4th 936 (D.C. Cir. 2023)
Facts:
The case involved the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Key Legal Issue:
How should courts treat agency interpretations when the statutory language is ambiguous?
Explanation:
The D.C. Circuit noted the declining influence of Chevron in recent years, applying a more searching review of agency interpretations and sometimes declining to defer if the agency’s reasoning was unpersuasive or lacked clear congressional authorization.
Outcome:
This case reflects lower courts’ growing skepticism of Chevron, signaling a trend toward more rigorous judicial review.
Summary: The Future of Chevron Deference
Chevron remains precedent but is increasingly constrained. Courts are more willing to scrutinize agency interpretations, especially on major policy issues.
“Major questions doctrine” has emerged as a key limitation, requiring clear congressional authorization for significant agency actions.
Distinction between formal and informal agency actions affects the level of deference, with Chevron more likely to apply to formal rulemaking.
Judicial skepticism is growing, suggesting future rulings may further limit or reshape Chevron.
RELATED Blog
0 comments