What is the Chevron Doctrine and what do Congress, federal agencies, and the courts have to do with it?
With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. The Biden administration, for example, has issued a host of new regulations on the environment and other priorities, including restrictions on emissions from power plants and vehicle tailpipes, as well as rules on student loan forgiveness, overtime pay, and affordable housing.
But in a recent major ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court cut back on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, especially in regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety, and other issues.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned its 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This ruling had established the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under this doctrine, if Congress hadn’t directly addressed an issue in legislation, courts had to uphold the relevant federal agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. However, the majority of justices have now rejected this approach, describing it as “fundamentally misguided.”
The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise “independent judgment” in determining whether an agency’s actions align with its statutory authority. In other words, courts must “independently” interpret the statute and enforce the will of Congress. This shift in the nature of judicial review marks a significant victory for those challenging federal regulations. It is expected to usher in a new era of greater scrutiny of federal agency actions and perhaps a different approach to law-making by Congress.
It will take some time to understand the full impact and downstream effects of the court’s ruling. However, one thing is clear; Congress must respond by taking a more definitive role in the legislative process and oversight of the various federal agencies. Otherwise, it is allowing the power it has previously ceded to the executive branch to flow to the judicial branch, where courts will continue to make decisions about federal regulations.
