Supreme Court Considers Limiting Agency Power
The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the “Chevron deference” doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that grants federal agencies broad authority in interpreting regulations. A decision to overturn or limit this doctrine could significantly alter the power balance between agencies and courts. The outcome may affect how future rules governing privacy, AI, and digital platforms are created and enforced.
- The legal precedent at the center of the debate, *Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.*, was a 1984 Supreme Court decision concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It established a two-step test for courts: first, determine if a law is ambiguous, and if so, defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation. - The current legal challenge was brought by commercial fishing companies, including Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc., against a rule from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The rule requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of at-sea monitors who collect data to prevent overfishing, a cost estimated at about $700 per day per vessel. - The specific cases before the court are *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and its companion case, *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce*. Lower courts had previously sided with the federal agency, citing the *Chevron* doctrine to defer to its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. - Opponents of the doctrine argue that it violates the separation of powers by allowing executive branch agencies to perform the judicial function of interpreting laws. They contend this gives agencies too much authority, effectively allowing them to create new rules with the force of law, bypassing Congress. - Proponents argue that overturning *Chevron* would lead to regulatory instability and undermine the efficiency of federal agencies. They assert that agency staff possess specialized expertise that judges lack, making them better equipped to fill in the details of complex statutes. - Even before this challenge, the Supreme Court had begun to limit agency power through the "major questions doctrine." This principle suggests that in cases with vast economic and political significance, courts should not defer to agency interpretations unless Congress has provided clear and explicit authorization. - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for these cases on January 17, 2024. On June 28, 2024, the Court overruled *Chevron*, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their own independent judgment when interpreting federal statutes and may not defer to an agency's interpretation simply because a law is ambiguous.
