The Chevron Deference Era: Which Justices Voted to Overturn It?

The landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) established a principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This doctrine, known as Chevron deference, profoundly shaped the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch for decades. However, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Chevron deference, marking a monumental shift in administrative law. The pivotal question is: Who were the justices who voted to overturn Chevron? The answer is that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority, voting to overturn the long-standing precedent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Impact of Overturning Chevron

The decision to overturn Chevron reverberates throughout the legal landscape. For nearly 40 years, Chevron provided a framework for courts to analyze agency interpretations of statutes, often leading them to defer to the agency’s expertise. With Chevron’s demise, courts are now tasked with independently interpreting statutes, potentially leading to greater judicial oversight of agency actions and, some argue, injecting more political influence into regulatory decisions. This shift may result in increased litigation challenging agency regulations and policies, and a more unpredictable regulatory environment for businesses and individuals.

A Detailed Look at the Justices’ Reasoning

Understanding the individual justices’ reasoning provides critical insight into this landmark decision. While the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts articulated the core rationale for overturning Chevron, each justice brings their own unique perspective to the legal debate.

The Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that Chevron deference had expanded beyond its intended scope, unduly limiting the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation. He maintained that courts possess the expertise and the constitutional duty to independently interpret laws, and that Chevron had inappropriately ceded this power to administrative agencies. The majority stressed the importance of judicial independence and the need for a consistent and predictable legal framework, arguing that overturning Chevron would restore the proper balance between the branches of government. The decision emphasizes that the courts must exercise their independent judgment in determining the best reading of statutes, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation.

Justice Thomas’s Concurrence

Justice Thomas, a long-time critic of Chevron, wrote a concurring opinion further elaborating on his view that the doctrine was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution. He emphasized that the APA explicitly requires courts to interpret statutes independently and that Chevron undermined this fundamental principle.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the majority opinion. They each have previously expressed skepticism regarding Chevron deference, in past decisions, and scholarly writings which signaled their readiness to curtail the doctrine. Their collective support for overturning Chevron reflects a shared belief in a more limited role for administrative agencies and a greater emphasis on judicial oversight.

The Dissent: Justice Jackson

Justice Jackson penned a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. She strongly defended the Chevron doctrine, arguing that it promoted predictability, consistency, and expertise in regulatory decision-making. She warned that overturning Chevron would lead to increased legal uncertainty, undermine the ability of agencies to effectively address complex policy challenges, and inject partisan politics into judicial decision-making. She argued that agencies, with their specialized knowledge, are better positioned than generalist judges to interpret ambiguous statutes in the context of complex regulatory schemes.

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have also been vocal supporters of the Chevron doctrine in the past. They believe that Chevron reflects a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, recognizing the limitations of judicial expertise in technical and scientific matters. They emphasized the importance of deferring to agency interpretations when Congress has delegated authority to agencies to fill in statutory gaps.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Overturning of Chevron

Here are 12 frequently asked questions to provide additional context and information regarding the overturning of Chevron:

1. What is Chevron deference in simple terms? Chevron deference is a legal principle requiring courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers, as long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

2. Why was Chevron deference considered important? Chevron deference was considered important because it provided a framework for judicial review of agency actions, promoted consistency and predictability in regulatory law, and recognized the expertise of administrative agencies in interpreting complex statutes.

3. What are the arguments against Chevron deference? Arguments against Chevron deference include that it allows agencies to overstep their statutory authority, undermines the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation, and can lead to inconsistent application of the law across different administrations.

4. What are the potential consequences of overturning Chevron? Potential consequences of overturning Chevron include increased litigation challenging agency regulations, greater judicial oversight of agency actions, a more unpredictable regulatory environment, and potentially less deference to agency expertise.

5. How will overturning Chevron affect administrative agencies? Overturning Chevron may reduce the power and influence of administrative agencies, as courts will now independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency interpretations. This could make it more difficult for agencies to implement new regulations or policies.

6. Will the overturning of Chevron lead to more litigation? Yes, it is likely that the overturning of Chevron will lead to more litigation, as parties challenge agency interpretations of statutes and seek independent judicial review.

7. How does this decision impact the balance of power between the branches of government? The overturning of Chevron shifts power from the executive branch (administrative agencies) to the judicial branch, as courts will now have greater authority to interpret statutes independently.

8. Is this the end of judicial deference to agencies altogether? No, it is not the end of judicial deference altogether. Courts may still defer to agency interpretations under other doctrines, such as the Skidmore deference, which gives weight to agency interpretations based on their persuasiveness.

9. How did the Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc. cases trigger this change? The Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc. cases both involved challenges to agency regulations regarding fishing vessel monitoring. These cases presented the Supreme Court with an opportunity to revisit and ultimately overturn Chevron deference.

10. What is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and how does it relate to Chevron? The APA is a federal law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Critics of Chevron argued that it conflicted with the APA’s requirement that courts independently interpret statutes.

11. What are some examples of significant cases that relied on Chevron deference in the past? Many environmental regulations, telecommunications policies, and consumer protection rules have been upheld based on Chevron deference. Significant cases include those involving the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations.

12. What are the possible long-term effects on businesses and individuals? In the long term, businesses and individuals may face a more unpredictable regulatory environment as courts interpret statutes independently and agency regulations are subject to greater judicial scrutiny. This could lead to both opportunities and challenges for businesses and individuals.