Supreme Court overturns Chevron deference

Supreme Court Chevron deference ruling overview: 

• Who: The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn 1984’s Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, also known as the Chevron deference. 
• Why: The majority ruled the Chevron deference improperly stripped the courts of their judicial power by increasing the power of executive agencies. 
• Where: The decision was made in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a longstanding precedent that instructed judges on when they would be able to defer to a federal agencies’ interpretation of the law in rulemaking. 

The court, in overturning 1984’s Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ruled the precedent improperly stripped the courts of judicial power by simultaneously increasing the power of executive agencies.

“By overruling Chevron, we restore this aspect of our separation of powers,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in an opinion for the court’s majority. 

Roberts also writes it should be up to the courts to exercise their independent judgment when making a decision on whether or not an agency has acted within its statutory authority.

“Courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous,” Justice Roberts writes.

Dissenting judge calls Chevron deference a cornerstone of administrative law

Overturning the so-called Chevron deference will prevent courts from being able to use what was a commonly used analytic tool. 

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, one of three who voted against overturning the Chevron deference, wrote in her dissent that the precedent was a cornerstone of administrative law for 40 years and put in place to assign responsibility for statutory construction between courts and agencies.

“Under Chevron, a court uses all its normal interpretive tools to determine whether Congress has spoken to an issue,” Kagan writes in her opinion.” If the court finds Congress has done so, that is the end of the matter; the agency’s views make no difference.” 

The decision was the final result of a challenge to a 2018 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that required fishers to be on the hook for part of the cost of having federal compliance monitors on their vessels. 

In another recent Supreme Court decision, the high court sided with the 11th Circuit in May when ruling a plaintiff is allowed to recover damages for a copyright claim even if the alleged infringement occurred more than three years prior to the filing of a complaint. 

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron deference? Let us know in the comments.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Transportation board sanctions Boeing for talking to media
• Supreme Court rules consumers can challenge regs outside statute of limitations
• Discharged LGBTQ vets file class action alleging discrimination, rights violations
• EPA warns majority of drinking water systems vulnerable to cyberattack