The United States Supreme Court has overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC., which required courts to uphold an agency’s interpretation of a federal statute so long as that interpretation was reasonable. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the Chevron doctrine was “fundamentally misguided” and inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, which instructs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgement…[and] makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes – like agency interpretations of the Constitution – are not entitled to deference.” Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
While the holding here does not itself invalidate statutes as interpreted by federal agencies, those interpretations are no longer presumptively correct if reasonable. Instead, while the Court can consider agency interpretations of an ambiguous statute, “it…remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
Justice Kagan, writing in dissent, noted that “Agencies have expertise in those areas…Agencies know those programs inside-out…courts do not.” Justice Kagan went on to note that federal agencies answer to the President, who in turn answers to the public for his policy decisions, while courts have no such accountability and no proper basis for making policy. “Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice, based on an implicit congressional delegation of interpretive authority.”
The long term impact of this holding, particularly when combined with the holding in Corner Post, Inc. v. Federal Reserve that the statute of limitations for challenging a government regulation does not accrue until a plaintiff is injured by final agency action, is not yet known, although the holding will reach agency regulations from the environment to banking and finance, healthcare, and beyond.
For more information about our business litigation practice, please visit our business litigation page.