Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference: A Blow to the Administrative State

Supreme Court Strikes Down 40-Year-Old Legal Precedent, Curtailing Power of Federal Bureaucrats

In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned a 40-year-old legal precedent known as Chevron deference, which allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes as they saw fit. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the administrative state and the judiciary.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that agencies do not have special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities, and that courts are better equipped to interpret the law. The decision effectively puts an end to the practice of deferring to unelected bureaucrats on matters of statutory interpretation.

Justice Clarence Thomas echoed this sentiment, noting that Chevron deference prevented the judiciary from serving as a check on the executive branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the negative consequences of a system that favored powerful agencies over individual rights, stating that the scales of justice had been tilted in favor of the most powerful.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for the regulatory state, as agencies will no longer have unchecked authority to regulate various aspects of American life. Critics of Chevron deference argue that it allowed agencies to overstep their statutory powers, leading to harmful regulations that impacted individuals and businesses.

However, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority for replacing judicial humility with judicial hubris, arguing that the court was overstepping its bounds by second-guessing agency expertise. Kagan’s dissent raises questions about the role of expertise in regulatory decision-making and the balance of power between branches of government.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Chevron deference represents a significant shift in the relationship between federal agencies and the judiciary. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of checks and balances in a system of government, and the need to uphold the principles of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.