The End of the Chevron Doctrine

The End of the Chevron Doctrine: What It Means and Why It Matters

In the world of administrative law and regulatory policy, few principles have had as much impact as the Chevron doctrine. Established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., this doctrine has guided how courts interpret statutes that give regulatory agencies authority. But with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to end the Chevron doctrine, a major shift has occurred, one that will have sweeping implications for agencies, businesses, and the public.

What Was the Chevron Doctrine?

The Chevron doctrine established a two-step process for courts to follow when deciding cases involving agency interpretation of statutes:
  1. Step One: Courts first determine if Congress’s intent in the statute is clear. If Congress’s intent is clear, the court follows that clear intent.
  2. Step Two: If Congress’s intent is unclear, courts defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is “reasonable,” even if the court might prefer a different interpretation.
This approach gave regulatory agencies considerable power to interpret and enforce ambiguous laws, especially in fields like environmental protection, labor rights, and consumer safety. It recognized that agencies have specialized expertise in their fields and are often better equipped than courts to address complex regulatory issues.

Why Did the Court End the Chevron Doctrine?

Several factors contributed to the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine:
  1. Concerns Over Separation of Powers:Critics have long argued that Chevron allowed the executive branch (via its agencies) to assume powers that rightly belonged to Congress. By deferring to agency interpretations of statutes, the courts effectively gave agencies quasi-legislative authority. This, critics argued, blurred the lines between branches of government, infringing on the principle of separation of powers.
  2. Concerns Over Accountability:Agencies are part of the executive branch and operate under appointed (rather than elected) officials. Critics of Chevron believed this weakened democratic accountability, as agency decisions could have wide-reaching effects without direct congressional approval. This concern gained traction as agencies were seen by some as part of a ‘deep state’ of bureaucrats whose decisions were often not fully transparent or publicly scrutinized.
  3. Judicial Philosophy:The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shown a preference for textualism and originalism, which focuses on the plain language and historical context of statutes rather than deference to agencies. Many in this camp argue that courts should be responsible for interpreting the law rather than deferring to agency interpretations.

Key Implications of Ending the Chevron Doctrine

  1. Stronger Judicial Oversight: Without Chevron, courts will likely take a more active role in interpreting ambiguous statutes rather than deferring to agencies. This shift could lead to less regulatory consistency, as court rulings may vary across different jurisdictions and cases. However, it also gives the judiciary more control over how laws are applied, restoring their role as the primary interpreters of legislation.
  2. Limits on Agency Power: Agencies will now face greater challenges when implementing policies based on ambiguous statutory authority. If Congress’s intent is unclear, courts will no longer defer to the agency’s interpretation, which means that agencies will likely adopt narrower approaches to avoid legal challenges.
  3. More Legislative Clarity Required:Congress will likely need to be more precise in drafting statutes. In the past, Congress could rely on agencies to interpret and “fill in the gaps” in vague laws. With Chevron gone, Congress may need to write more detailed and clear statutes, specifying how agencies should implement the law. This could lead to more debate and delay in passing legislation, particularly in areas like environmental and consumer protection, where details are often complex and contentious.
  4. Increased Litigation:Businesses, advocacy groups, and individuals may be more inclined to challenge agency decisions in court, now that Chevron deference no longer shields agencies’ interpretations. This could lead to an uptick in litigation, with companies and groups trying to push back on regulations they find burdensome or intrusive.

Potential Impact on Specific Areas of Regulation

The end of the Chevron doctrine will likely affect various regulatory areas differently:
  • Environmental Regulation: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which frequently interprets ambiguous statutes like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, may see its authority constrained. Cases challenging EPA authority will now receive closer scrutiny from the courts, potentially limiting how aggressively the EPA can regulate environmental issues without explicit congressional direction.
  • Workplace and Labor Rules: The Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board may also face limitations, especially in areas like wage and hour rules or labor relations, where their authority to interpret statutes broadly will no longer receive automatic deference.
  • Healthcare and Safety Standards: Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could similarly experience new challenges. The FDA, for instance, often relies on statutory interpretations to regulate new or evolving technologies, such as e-cigarettes or artificial intelligence in medical devices. Without Chevron, these agencies may need to proceed with greater caution.

Conclusion: What Comes Next?

The end of the Chevron doctrine marks a new era in administrative law. Courts will play a more central role in interpreting regulatory statutes, potentially leading to stricter checks on agency power. This shift may have significant benefits in restoring the balance of power among the branches of government and ensuring democratic accountability. However, it also raises the stakes for Congress to draft clear, detailed legislation and for agencies to act carefully within the bounds of statutory language.
In an environment where every agency decision could be closely scrutinized in court, we may see slower, more deliberate regulatory actions—and potentially more limited responses to emerging challenges. For businesses, this creates new opportunities to challenge regulations, but it also introduces uncertainty as the courts, rather than agencies, assume a larger role in defining the meaning of federal statutes.
The Supreme Court’s decision to end Chevron deference is a monumental change in the landscape of U.S. law and regulation. The full impact will unfold over the coming years as courts, Congress, and regulatory agencies navigate this new terrain.