The foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.
Here’s the latest on the decision.
The Supreme Court swept aside a longstanding legal precedent on Friday, reducing the power of executive agencies and endangering countless regulations by transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. The vote was 6 to 3, divided along ideological lines.
The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. Critics of regulatory authority immediately hailed the decision, suggesting it could open new avenues to challenge federal rules in areas ranging from abortion pills to the environment.
Here’s what else to know:
What is Chevron deference? It is the principle from the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling that gave regulatory agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress had left vague. When Congress passes a law, it cannot anticipate all the ways that the economy, the nation and the world will change. If regulators had only the powers that Congress explicitly gave them, many regulations would be vulnerable to legal challenges.
A major goal of the conservative legal movement was overturning Chevron. The ruling empowered executive branch agencies, and many conservatives have come to believe that executive agencies are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — the shorthand for this critique is “the deep state.” And business groups on the whole remain hostile to regulation.
The case started with fishermen. The court heard two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.
Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island — backed by two conservative organizations that decry the “administrative state” — sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.
Here’s the latest on the decision.
The Supreme Court swept aside a longstanding legal precedent on Friday, reducing the power of executive agencies and endangering countless regulations by transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. The vote was 6 to 3, divided along ideological lines.
The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. Critics of regulatory authority immediately hailed the decision, suggesting it could open new avenues to challenge federal rules in areas ranging from abortion pills to the environment.
Here’s what else to know:
What is Chevron deference? It is the principle from the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling that gave regulatory agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress had left vague. When Congress passes a law, it cannot anticipate all the ways that the economy, the nation and the world will change. If regulators had only the powers that Congress explicitly gave them, many regulations would be vulnerable to legal challenges.
A major goal of the conservative legal movement was overturning Chevron. The ruling empowered executive branch agencies, and many conservatives have come to believe that executive agencies are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — the shorthand for this critique is “the deep state.” And business groups on the whole remain hostile to regulation.
The case started with fishermen. The court heard two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.
Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island — backed by two conservative organizations that decry the “administrative state” — sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.
