Our Role in Shaping Chevron Deference in the Supreme Court 

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its 1984 landmark law precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In short, Chevron instructs courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. It has become the most-cited administrative law decision ever, shaping judicial review of administrative actions.

Overruling Chevron "is an important course correction that will help create a more predictable and stable regulatory environment," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne P. Clark. "The Supreme Court’s previous deference rule allowed each new presidential administration to advance their political agendas through flip-flopping regulations and not provide consistent rules of the road for businesses to navigate, plan, and invest in the future. The Chamber will continue to urge courts to faithfully interpret statutes that govern federal agencies and to ensure federal agencies act in a reasonable and lawful manner."

The Evolution of Chevron 

Chevron deference was originally conceptualized as an effort to foster respect for the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. In the Court’s view, requiring the judiciary to defer to federal agencies would ensure that policy decisions are left to the politically accountable branches. It also would allow Congress to draw on the comparative advantages and expertise of the Executive Branch by allowing administrative agencies to fill in the gaps of complex statutes.

Over the last 40 years, the Chamber has filed many legal briefs weighing in on the scope of and limits on Chevron deference. For example, the Chamber has argued that courts should undertake a “rigorous textual analysis” of statutes and ensure that Chevron review imposes a “meaningful limitation” on agency overreach. The Chamber has urged courts to hold that Chevron does not apply to certain​ agency decisions.

As the Chamber has explained, Chevron deference had increasingly become unbounded. In its most recent form, Chevron deference posed a triple threat to the tripartite scheme of government that the Supreme Court had intended to protect. It enticed Congress to abdicate its duty to make the law. It enticed the Executive Branch to stray far beyond its duty to enforce the law. And it enticed the judiciary to abandon its duty to say what the law is.

The Consequences of Chevron 

In order to make effective strategic and investment decisions, businesses must operate in a regulatory environment that remains relatively consistent over time and enables them to know their legal obligations in advance.

The now-overturned Chevron regime had evolved to undermine predictability and stability for businesses because they could not ascertain their regulatory obligations based on the laws. Rather, regulatory obligations would turn on unstable agency statutory interpretations, sometimes without any prior notice at all. This instability hampered productivity, investment, and innovation. Businesses cannot effectively plan for the future when agencies are free to unilaterally change the basic rules at any time.

The Supreme Court Overturns Chevron  

In light of these concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to revisit Chevron. The Court heard arguments in January of this year in two companion cases—Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—to decide Chevron’s fate.

The Chamber filed an amicus curiae brief in these cases, arguing that the Supreme Court should repudiate the practice of reflexive judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes that had arisen under today’s expansive understanding of Chevron deference.

On June 28, the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained:

"Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous."

Importantly for the business community, the Court underscored that overruling Chevron deference does not necessarily undercut the numerous prior judicial decisions that upheld agency statutory interpretations under the prior Chevron deference regime. Those cases, the Court explained, “are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology,” and “[m]ere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a ‘special justification’ for overruling such a holding.”

What Happens Next?  

The Chamber stands ready to help businesses navigate this new regulatory terrain in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. We will work closely with members to assess the impact of the decision.

The lower courts will now need to interpret some aspects of the Court’s decision. For example, what does it mean to say that courts may not defer to agencies’ legal interpretations but should give careful attention or respect to the agencies’ judgment? And under what circumstances should courts conclude that Congress has delegated interpretive authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits on such delegations?

The Chamber will remain actively engaged on these questions and continue to urge courts to faithfully interpret statutes that govern federal agencies and ensure that federal agencies act in a reasonable and lawful manner.

About the authors

Daryl Joseffer

Daryl Joseffer is executive vice president and chief counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In this role, Joseffer handles a variety of litigation matters for the Chamber. He has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.

Read more