Should Chevron deference be formally overruled?
What is Chevron Deference?
Chevron deference comes from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). It establishes a two-step test for courts reviewing an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute that the agency administers:
Step One: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue? If yes, then the court must give effect to Congress’s clear intent.
Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, the court must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation, even if the court would have interpreted it differently.
The rationale is that agencies have expertise and political accountability to interpret complex statutes within their jurisdiction.
Key Cases Illustrating Chevron Deference
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC (1984)
The Court held that the EPA's interpretation of the term "stationary source" in the Clean Air Act was reasonable and deserved deference because Congress had not clearly defined it. This case established the two-step framework for reviewing agency interpretations.
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
The Court clarified that Chevron deference applies only when Congress has delegated authority to the agency to make rules with the force of law (e.g., formal rulemaking or adjudication). In less formal agency actions, courts may apply Skidmore deference based on persuasiveness instead of Chevron’s mandatory deference.
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
The Court ruled that when the Supreme Court has previously interpreted a statute, an agency interpretation that conflicts with that can still be upheld under Chevron if the prior Court ruling was based on a misunderstanding or was not a definitive interpretation.
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
The Court declined to apply Chevron deference to an important question of deep economic and political significance regarding the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits because the question was of "deep economic and political significance," and Chevron usually does not apply in such contexts.
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)
The Court struck down EPA’s refusal to consider costs in regulating power plants under the Clean Air Act, refusing to defer under Chevron because the agency’s interpretation was deemed unreasonable.
Arguments for Overruling Chevron Deference
Separation of Powers Concerns
Critics argue Chevron gives excessive power to administrative agencies, effectively allowing the executive branch to both make and interpret law, undermining the judiciary's role to interpret statutes.
Lack of Democratic Accountability
Agencies are not elected and thus lack the democratic legitimacy to make binding interpretations of law. Congress is the elected body meant to make laws, and courts should strictly enforce legislative intent.
Judicial Abdication
Chevron deference can be seen as courts abdicating their constitutional duty to say what the law is, leaving it to agencies instead, which may lead to arbitrary or politically motivated interpretations.
Ambiguity and Vagueness Issues
Chevron allows agencies to exploit statutory ambiguities for policy preferences, leading to uncertainty in the law.
Recent Criticism by Supreme Court Justices
Some conservative justices (e.g., Justice Scalia earlier, Justice Thomas more recently) have called for overruling Chevron, advocating a return to a more robust judicial role.
Arguments Against Overruling Chevron Deference
Expertise of Agencies
Agencies have technical expertise and experience in complex regulatory areas that courts lack.
Practical Necessity
Congress often passes broadly worded statutes anticipating agencies to fill in the gaps. Without Chevron, courts may overreach or misinterpret complex policy issues.
Consistency and Predictability
Chevron provides a predictable framework for courts and agencies, encouraging agencies to develop expertise and consistent policies.
Political Accountability of Agencies
Though unelected, agencies are controlled by the executive branch, which is politically accountable.
Should Chevron be Overruled?
Whether Chevron should be overruled is a hotly contested question. The Supreme Court has recently shown skepticism toward Chevron deference but has not explicitly overruled it.
The West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) decision reflected some limits on Chevron, especially in major questions doctrine cases, suggesting courts will not defer to agencies on significant policy issues unless Congress is clear.
Justice Gorsuch and others have criticized Chevron, but the Court hasn't formally overturned it yet.
Overruling Chevron would likely shift interpretive power from agencies to courts, impacting administrative law, regulatory policy, and separation of powers.
Summary Table of Cases and Their Contribution to Chevron Doctrine
| Case | Year | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Chevron v. NRDC | 1984 | Established two-step test for agency deference |
| United States v. Mead | 2001 | Limited Chevron to formal agency actions |
| National Cable v. Brand X | 2005 | Allowed agency reinterpretation post-Supreme Court decisions |
| King v. Burwell | 2015 | Refused Chevron in cases of major economic significance |
| Michigan v. EPA | 2015 | Rejected agency interpretation deemed unreasonable |
RELATED Blog
0 comments