The recent Supreme Court decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. This landmark decision will undoubtedly have profound implications on the future of lawmaking and rulemaking in the United States.

A Brief History of the Chevron Doctrine

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., has been a cornerstone of administrative law for decades. The doctrine emerged from a dispute over the interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable.

The Chevron doctrine is based on a two-step process:

1. Step One: Determining whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise issue in question. If the statute is clear, that is the end of the matter.
2. Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, determining whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

This doctrine has allowed agencies to have significant leeway in interpreting and implementing federal laws, enabling them to adapt regulations to changing circumstances and policy priorities without requiring explicit congressional authorization for every specific action.

The Supreme Court’s Decision to Overrule Chevron

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that effectively overruled the Chevron doctrine. In this decision, the Court emphasized a stricter interpretation of statutory text and reduced the deference previously granted to federal agencies. This ruling came in a case that challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate certain environmental standards, arguing that the agency had overstepped its statutory mandate.

Implications for Lawmaking and Rulemaking

The overruling of the Chevron doctrine is expected to have wide-ranging consequences for how federal laws are interpreted and implemented. Here are some key implications:

1. Increased Judicial Power: By removing the deference to agency interpretations, courts will now have greater authority to interpret federal statutes. This shift means that judges, rather than agency experts, will play a more significant role in determining the meaning and application of laws. This could lead to more frequent judicial interventions in regulatory matters.
2. Reduced Agency Flexibility: Federal agencies will face more stringent scrutiny of their regulatory actions. They will need to ensure that their interpretations of statutes are not only reasonable but also closely aligned with the precise wording of the laws. This could limit the ability of agencies to respond quickly and effectively to emerging issues and challenges.
3. Potential for Increased Litigation: With courts now having the final say on statutory interpretation, there may be an increase in litigation as parties challenge agency actions more aggressively. This could lead to prolonged legal battles and uncertainty in the implementation of regulations.
4. Legislative Gridlock and Policy Stagnation: The decision could exacerbate legislative gridlock, as Congress may struggle to pass detailed and precise legislation needed to guide agency actions. Without the flexibility provided by the Chevron doctrine, agencies may be unable to fill in the gaps left by broad or ambiguous statutes, leading to potential policy stagnation.
5. Impact on Regulatory Innovation: Agencies have traditionally used their interpretative authority to innovate and address new issues within the framework of existing laws. The overruling of Chevron may stifle such innovation, as agencies become more cautious and conservative in their regulatory approaches to avoid judicial invalidation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine represents a monumental shift in administrative law. While it aims to ensure a closer adherence to statutory text and limit perceived agency overreach, it also raises significant challenges for the future of lawmaking and rulemaking. As the judiciary takes on a more prominent role in interpreting federal statutes, the dynamics of regulatory governance in the United States are set to change dramatically.

For further reading and detailed analysis, you can refer to the following articles:

• New York Times
• Reuters
• Politico
• CBS News
• USA Today
• NBC News

‍