Speaker: John Cartier
What was the holding in the Supreme Court’s recent case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?
Hello, my name is John Cartier. I'm an attorney with Omnus Law and today I'm here to speak with you briefly about a recent Supreme Court case known as Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo. This decision which came out on June 28th of this year was a 6-2 decision opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. The Supreme Court here held that a long standing doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine needs to be overruled. Essentially. This now means that the Administrative Procedure Act mandates that courts need to exercise independent judgment in determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. In other words, courts may no longer automatically defer to agency interpretations simply because the statute is ambiguous.
What was the Chevron Deference?
The Chevron Doctrine, also known as Chevron Deference was in place in the United States for the last 40 years. This was an administrative law principle which required federal courts to defer to federal agencies interpretations of ambiguous or unclear statutes. For example, if Congress passed a law with unclear provisions or gaps, it was up to agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency to fill in those gaps and to create rules. However, now courts must exercise independent judgment when interpreting ambiguous laws significantly impacting agency powers and the administrative court process.
What does it mean for administrative law to see the end of the Chevron Deference?
The end of the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in administrative law. Previously, courts deferred to federal agencies interpretations of ambiguous statutes usually through administrative court processes. Now, they must independently evaluate whether an agency's actions align with statutory authority. This change empowers courts today to play a much more active role in interpreting laws and bringing greater scrutiny over agency decisions.
.png){kind=logo}