Chevron is Dead: How Courts are Reshaping Regulatory Power
Established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Chevron doctrine has long served as a basis of administrative law by allowing federal agencies the authority to interpret vague statutes within their regulatory domains. The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron that when Congress passes ambiguous or unclear laws, courts should defer to agency expertise in how to interpret those laws, as agencies possess specific knowledge and experience. This deference fostered consistent and reasoned regulatory decisions that promoted effective governance. However, this principle was recently overturned in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Chevron violates the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which requires courts to decide “all relevant questions of the law” when they review decisions made by agencies [1]. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine has placed interpretative power in the hands of the courts, which are inadequate in handling complex regulatory decisions, undermining effective governance and regulatory consistency. Removing this responsibility from the agencies to give to the courts threatens the rule of law by enabling inconsistent decisions that lack expertise.
Chevron’s overturning will have significant consequences for how complex regulations are interpreted. Courts lack the technical expertise that specialized regulatory agencies possess, which is needed to handle complicated regulatory issues. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are staffed by subject matter experts who understand the depths of their respective fields. Having expertise allowed these agencies to interpret regulations based on their legitimate knowledge and data. For example, the EPA’s expertise and authority to regulate pollutants under the Clean Air Act have led to major improvements in air quality. Emissions of the six common pollutants have dropped 78% between 1970 and 2020 [2]. Meanwhile, courts are typically composed of members who may not have the specific knowledge required to make informed decisions on complex and technical regulatory matters. Specific interpretations should be left to agencies that have the ability to interpret relevant data, as courts do not have the level of expertise to do so properly. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion of Chevron, “Judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of the government.” [3] Courts are less equipped to consider the practical consequences that come out of regulatory decisions. Agencies with extensive expertise can consider the real-world impact of their policies on industries and citizens. This reversal could especially impact the FDA, as former FDA attorneys worry that it will take longer to develop new drugs and medical devices, since Loper’s ruling could lead to more legal challenges [4]. The FDA’s final rule that expanded regulation of laboratory-developed tests by including them in the definition of “medical device” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 has already been challenged in the Eastern District of Texas. Without authorization granted by Congress, the FDA could be prevented from regulating what it sees as an important public health priority because of this litigation issue [5].
In addition to creating less informed decisions, shifting interpretative power to the courts creates legal uncertainty and erodes regulatory stability due to the unpredictability of court decisions. Under the Chevron doctrine, federal agencies provided consistent interpretations of ambiguous statutes that allowed for stable, long-term policy implementation. Now, what can we make of the thousands and thousands of decisions that were previously decided based on Chevron deference? Certainly, there will be those who challenge the agencies’ previously justified interpretations. Legal experts are predicting a swell in litigation. This could especially affect healthcare policy, with pharmaceutical companies and insurers challenging programs and regulations [6]. Of course, different levels of the court might not always agree. Federal and district courts might have different interpretations. This will result in “inconsistent application of regulations throughout the country.” [7] The inconsistencies will undermine the reliability of legal frameworks relied on by businesses and individuals. Significant unpredictability will make it difficult for them to make long-term decisions and investments. Businesses will have to anticipate conflicting rulings, making it nearly impossible to navigate compliance. While agencies could implement regulations fairly quickly and reasonably, business owners will now be at the mercy of the court’s timeline, constantly being impacted by litigation [8]. Simultaneously, these legal fluctuations could create inefficiencies within government agencies, since they will also be forced to continuously adjust their policies in response to various court rulings. Turning interpretative power over to the courts threatens the stability for regulatory effectiveness and the rule of law.
Critics of the Chevron doctrine argue that it gave excessive power to administrative agencies, which stretched their statutory authority beyond the intent of Congress. The doctrine’s opponents state that agencies, bodies that are unelected, lack direct accountability to the public, causing regulatory overreach and decisions based on political agendas as opposed to the intent of the legislation they’re meant to be implementing. By shifting this power to the courts, they contend that courts can provide a neutral check on the agencies and ensure that the regulations align with congressional intent. However, transferring interpretative authority from agencies to unelected judges does little to enhance direct accountability to the public. Agencies are subject to oversight by Congress and are still accountable to the public through the President. Justice Stevens included in the Chevron decision that, “while agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices.” [3] Meanwhile, federal judges serve lifetime appointments and are only held accountable by the threat of impeachment.
The overturning of the Chevron doctrine fundamentally altered administrative law by shifting interpretative authority away from experienced agencies to the judiciary. This shift greatly threatens effective governance and the decisions of businesses and individuals by placing regulatory power into the hands of generalist judges, who do not have the expertise to ensure knowledgeable and consistent rulings. Federal agencies that have long relied on specialized knowledge to enforce regulations will now be dealt with greater legal uncertainty. Chevron’s absence will likely lead to increased litigation and inconsistent legal standards in jurisdictions across the nation, creating uncertainty for businesses and policymakers. This shift in power risks transforming regulatory decision-making into a judicial battleground, where statutory interpretations can fluctuate across courts’ ideologies. Ultimately, the reversal of Chevron undermines the stability and predictability that those groups could previously rely on when deciding how to approach complex regulatory frameworks. A system of informed and expert-level decision making has been replaced with one that is unpredictable, potentially leading to a detrimental change in the rule of law.
Bibliography
[1] "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451. Accessed 2 Mar. 2025.
[2] EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health. Accessed 15 Mar. 2025.
[3] Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
[4] Cirruzzo, Chelsea, and Ben Leonard. “Chevron Ruling Could Clog the Drug Pipeline - Politico.” Politico, www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pulse/2024/07/01/chevron-ruling-could-clog-the-drug-pipeline-00165980. Accessed 2 Mar. 2025.
[5] Martin, Sabine. “Former Aides of John McCain Throw Support to Democratic Senate Candidate Ruben Gallego.” The Arizona Republic, Arizona Republic, 8 Aug. 2024, www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/07/ruben-gallego-gets-across-the-aisle-support-from-mccain-republicans/74696886007/.
[6] Parrella, Christopher. “Supreme Court Decision Limits Regulatory Authority: Implications for Healthcare Providers: Legal Services in Boston, Massachusetts.” Parrella Health Law, 13 Aug. 2024, www.parrellahealth.law/supreme-court-decision-limits-regulatory-authority-implications-for-healthcare-providers.
[7] Blumenthal, Michael, et al. “The End of Chevron Deference: What Does It Mean, And ...” American Bar, www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-august/end-chevron-deference-what-does-it-mean-what-comes-next. Accessed 2 Mar. 2025.
[8] “Is the End of the Chevron Doctrine Bad for Business Growth?” Investructor, 28 Sept. 2024, investructor.com/money/chevron-doctrine.