Supreme Court Limits Federal Agencies Regulatory Power By Reversing 40-Year-Old Chevron Precedent

The Supreme Cort overturned a 40-year-old precedent that gave deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes as they create and enforce regulations.

The court’s six conservative justices all voted to overturn what has been known as the “Chevron doctrine,” rooted in a 1984 case and impacting everything from the enforcement of clean air and water to rules to FCC regulations on broadcasting and the internet.

“Chevron defies the command of the [the Administrative Procedure Act] that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret . . . statutory provisions’,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

He added, “Chevron cannot be reconciled with the APA, as the Government and the dissent contend, by presuming that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations to agencies.”

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that in the majority ruling, “the Court flips the script: It is now ‘the courts (rather than the agency)’ that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

She added, “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open

issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”

The decision makes it all the more likely that any regulation will be challenged, absent more specific congressional action. Conservatives and business groups had long had the “Chevron doctrine” in their crosshairs, and the majority’s decision is actually little surprise given the rightward shift of the court.