Proposals to end Chevron deference
Proposals to End Chevron Deference
What is Chevron Deference?
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) established a doctrine where courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers, so long as the interpretation is reasonable.
Why End or Limit Chevron Deference?
Critics argue Chevron:
Undermines judicial authority by shifting statutory interpretation power to agencies.
Reduces accountability since agencies are not elected bodies.
Encourages agencies to expand their power, risking regulatory overreach.
Conflicts with separation of powers by blurring legislative, executive, and judicial roles.
Thus, proposals have emerged to restrict or abolish Chevron, aiming to restore courts as the final arbiters of statutory meaning.
Key Case Laws Highlighting the Debate and Proposals to End Chevron
1. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts: The Supreme Court reviewed IRS regulations interpreting provisions of the Affordable Care Act regarding health insurance subsidies.
Holding: The Court refused to apply Chevron deference, holding that the issue was of “deep economic and political significance” and thus courts must interpret statutes without deferring to agencies.
Significance: Introduced the “major questions doctrine”, which limits Chevron deference when issues are of great importance.
Impact on Proposals: This doctrine forms a basis for limiting Chevron in major policy areas.
2. Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2017) (Tenth Circuit)
Facts: The court rejected Chevron deference for an agency interpretation, arguing it violates separation of powers.
Holding: The Tenth Circuit ruled courts should interpret statutes independently, without deferring to agencies.
Significance: First federal appellate court to explicitly call for ending Chevron deference.
Impact on Proposals: Supports arguments for restoring judicial primacy in statutory interpretation.
3. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts: EPA’s interpretation of whether costs must be considered when regulating power plants was challenged.
Holding: The Court held EPA unreasonably ignored costs and showed skepticism toward broad agency discretion.
Significance: Reinforced judicial scrutiny over agency interpretations, implicitly questioning broad Chevron deference.
Impact on Proposals: Demonstrates courts exercising more active review instead of automatic deference.
4. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Facts: FDA claimed authority to regulate tobacco products.
Holding: The Supreme Court refused Chevron deference, finding the statute did not grant FDA such authority.
Significance: The Court reasoned that Chevron does not apply if the agency interpretation conflicts with congressional intent on important issues.
Impact on Proposals: Provides precedent for restricting Chevron where agency claims contradict clear legislative purpose.
5. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)
Facts: Supreme Court held that agencies can change interpretations without engaging in full notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Holding: The Court applied Chevron deference but underscored agency flexibility.
Significance: This case supports Chevron but also invites debate on agency power and accountability.
Impact on Proposals: Highlights tension between agency flexibility and calls for more judicial control.
6. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Facts: The CFPB challenged based on structure and power.
Holding: Court curtailed the agency’s unilateral removal protections.
Significance: While not about Chevron per se, it signals judicial willingness to curb administrative power.
Impact on Proposals: Part of broader judicial skepticism toward administrative state power.
Summary Table of Cases Related to Ending or Limiting Chevron
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| King v. Burwell | 2015 | Major questions doctrine | Limits Chevron on major policy issues |
| Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch | 2017 | Rejecting Chevron deference | Calls for courts to interpret statutes independently |
| Michigan v. EPA | 2015 | Judicial scrutiny of agency rules | Courts more active in reviewing agency interpretations |
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson | 2000 | Limits on agency authority | Chevron rejected when agency oversteps congressional intent |
| Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc. | 2015 | Agency can change interpretations | Supports agency flexibility but highlights debate |
| Seila Law LLC v. CFPB | 2020 | Limits on agency structure | Signals judicial skepticism of agency autonomy |
Proposals to End or Limit Chevron
Legislative Repeal: Congress could pass legislation clarifying that courts should not defer to agencies but interpret statutes independently.
Major Questions Doctrine: Courts increasingly apply this doctrine to carve out exceptions for significant policy decisions.
Judicial Restraint: Some courts refuse to apply Chevron when agency interpretations affect important economic or political issues.
Reconsideration by the Supreme Court: Several justices have expressed skepticism toward Chevron, and future Court decisions could significantly narrow or overturn it.
Enhanced Congressional Oversight: Increasing statutory clarity to limit ambiguity and reduce agency interpretive discretion.
Conclusion
The debate on ending Chevron deference centers on restoring judicial authority and curbing agency overreach while balancing the need for agency expertise and flexibility. Case law shows a growing judicial willingness to limit Chevron, especially in cases involving major policy questions or where agency interpretations conflict with clear congressional intent.
Whether Chevron survives in its current form or is significantly curtailed depends largely on future Supreme Court rulings and potential legislative reforms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments