Skip to content 
share on >>>
In a significant judicial decision on Friday, the Supreme Court dismantled a 40-year-old precedent that has long empowered federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. This ruling is heralded as a substantial triumph for those opposing the expansive reach of federal bureaucracy, often labeled as the “deep state.”
The Overturned Precedent
The precedent at the heart of this decision stems from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Known as “Chevron deference,” this principle permitted federal agencies considerable latitude to interpret statutes when the language was unclear. This doctrine has been a fundamental aspect of administrative law, enabling agencies to effectively create and enforce regulations.
The Supreme Court's Recent Decision
The catalyst for the Supreme Court’s latest ruling was a dispute involving a fisheries regulation. In a 6-3 decision reflecting the court’s ideological divide, the justices ruled to nullify Chevron deference. The conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, declared, “Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenting liberal justices, criticized the majority’s decision. She argued that it undermines a crucial element of administrative governance, describing the ruling as a “bald assertion of judicial authority.”
The Genesis and Impact of Chevron
When decided in 1984, Chevron was seen as a boon for the Reagan administration’s deregulatory ambitions. The ruling meant that courts would generally defer to federal agencies’ expertise in interpreting ambiguous laws, which initially supported Republican efforts to ease regulatory burdens on businesses. Over time, however, Chevron deference proved beneficial to both Republican and Democratic administrations, allowing them to flexibly implement and enforce a broad range of regulations.
Mounting Criticism and the Case at Hand
In recent years, Chevron deference has come under increasing fire, especially from conservative factions. Critics argue that it grants too much power to unelected bureaucrats, enabling them to make far-reaching decisions with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, supporters, including environmental and progressive groups, have defended Chevron, emphasizing that it allows agencies to tackle complex issues like climate change effectively.
The specific case leading to the Supreme Court’s recent decision involved a federal regulation mandating fishing vessel operators to contribute to the costs of data collection for fishery conservation. Operators in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast challenged this 2020 rule, arguing that the National Marine Fisheries Service lacked the authority under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to impose such a regulation. This rule required vessel operators to fund a monitoring program, potentially costing them up to $710 per day, which the challengers contended was prohibitively expensive for smaller operators. Lower courts had sided with the federal government, but the Supreme Court’s decision reversed these rulings.
Broader Implications and Related Judicial Trends
This ruling is part of a broader judicial trend where the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is curtailing the power of federal agencies. In recent terms, the Court has also invalidated President Joe Biden’s federal student loan debt relief plan, blocked a Covid vaccination-or-test mandate for larger businesses, and restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
While these decisions did not rely on Chevron deference, they underscored a judicial philosophy known as the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine posits that significant national policy decisions require explicit congressional authorization, reflecting the Court’s wariness of broad agency powers without clear legislative backing.
By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has signaled a pivotal shift in administrative law. This decision is poised to increase judicial scrutiny of federal agency actions, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape and the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branches of the U.S. government.
