Chevron Doctrine

Extracted Attributes

• Type

  Legal Doctrine

• Field

  U.S. Administrative Law

• Duration

  40 years

• Overruled By

  United States Supreme Court

• Key Principle

  Federal courts defer to a government agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if Congress has not directly addressed the issue and the agency's interpretation is permissible.

• Date Overruled

  2024-06-28

• Established By

  United States Supreme Court

• Overruling Case

  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

• Date Established

  1984

• Originating Case

  Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

• Reason for Overturning

  Conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act

Timeline

• Clean Air Act of 1963, the statute at the center of the Chevron case, was enacted. (Source: Wikipedia)

  1963

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed its definition of 'source' under the Clean Air Act, leading to the legal challenge. (Source: Wikipedia)

  1981

• The U.S. Supreme Court decided *Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.*, establishing the Chevron Doctrine. (Source: Summary)

  1984

• The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron Doctrine in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce*. (Source: Web Search Results)

  2024-06-28

• The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine is cited as a basis for initiatives like DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) to reduce federal regulation. (Source: Related Documents)

  2024-06-28

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute". The decision involved a legal challenge to a change in the U.S. government's interpretation of the word "source" in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The Act did not precisely define what constituted a "source" of air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially defined "source" to cover essentially any significant change or addition to a plant or factory. In 1981, the EPA changed its definition to mean only an entire plant or factory. This allowed companies to build new projects without going through the EPA's lengthy new review process if they simultaneously modified other parts of their plant to reduce emissions, avoiding any net change. Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist advocacy group, challenged the legality of the EPA's new definition. NRDC won the case in a federal court, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and ruled in favor of Chevron on the grounds that the courts should broadly defer to EPA and other independent regulatory agencies. Chevron was one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law and was cited in thousands of cases. Forty years later, in June 2024, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, on the grounds that it conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Web Search Results

• Chevron deference (doctrine) - Ballotpedia

  _Chevron_ deference, or _Chevron_ doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. The Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2024, in _Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo_ and _Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce_ to overturn _Chevron_ deference, holding that federal courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous [...] _Chevron_ deference was a doctrine of judicial deference that compelled federal courts, in reviewing a federal government agency's action, to defer to the agency’s construction of a statute that Congress directed the agency to administer. The original, two-step _Chevron_ process was first outlined in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court opinion for _Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc._ #### _Chevron_ doctrine's two-step review [...] The principle derived its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case _Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc._ which concerned disagreement over a change in the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of a permitting provision of the Clean Air Act of 1977. The case established a two-step review approach#Chevron's_two-step_review "Chevron deference (doctrine)") used by courts to analyze an agency's legal interpretations. Under the review process, courts

• The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now?

  Established in 1984 by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, this jurisprudential doctrine has underpinned U.S. administrative law ever since and has governed some of our most important protections involving pollution, food safety, and more. David Doniger argued the Chevroncase on behalf of NRDC, which at the time was trying to get the EPA to adequately enforce pollution controls at industrial facilities under the Clean Air Act. The agency under then [...] Chevron deference’s detractors argue that the doctrine gives agencies a rubber stamp to impose onerous restrictions and rules. But as noted by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, federal agencies face legal challenges to their rules all the time—and only prevail in about 70 percent of these challenges, even with the Chevron doctrine on their side. In other words, their powers are far from unchecked.

• The Chevron Doctrine Overturned: Implications for U.S. Regulatory ...

  ### The _Chevron_ Doctrine: an Overview _Chevron_ started out simply enough. When a regulated party challenged an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the decision required courts to defer to the responsible agency’s interpretation so long as it was reasonable. _Chevron_ thus set out a two-step framework to determine when deference was appropriate. [...] The Supreme Court's decision in _Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo_ is a watershed moment in administrative law. By overruling the _Chevron_ doctrine, the Court reasserted the judiciary's role in interpreting statutes and ensuring that agencies act within their statutory mandates. This decision will reshape the landscape of judicial review and agency accountability, with far-reaching implications for the regulatory environment and the balance of power between the judiciary and administrative [...] , federal courts had to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of any ambiguous statute within the agency’s purview, even if the agency’s interpretation of federal law didn’t align with the courts. That practice stopped last month with the Court’s decision in _Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo_, No. 22-451 (decided June 28, 2024). This article examines the _Chevron_ doctrine, why the Court rejected it after 40 years, and what businesses and other regulated parties can expect now that

• 'Chevron deference' faces existential test - Harvard Gazette

  Chevron is, at bottom, about the power of administrative agencies relative to the courts. It stands for the idea that judges should defer to agency interpretations of the gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable. Under this doctrine, agencies get some room to maneuver when Congress does not specifically anticipate or resolve every imaginable legal question (as is often the case), on the theory that Congress entrusted the statutes in the [...] enabling agencies to run amok, a symbol of government excess, overreach, and arbitrariness. I’ve always thought this conservative antipathy to Chevron was curious, since the doctrine is politically neutral: Agencies get deference in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Whoever runs the executive branch gets to interpret the gaps and ambiguities in federal law to align with their policy prerogatives. But the prevailing view among anti-regulatory activists now seems to be that only

• Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal ...

  By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in _Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council_, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the _Chevron_ doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it [...] Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that the _Chevron_ doctrine was inconsistent not only with the Administrative Procedure Act but also with the Constitution’s division of power among the three branches of government. The _Chevron_ doctrine, he argued, requires judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.” [...] And because of the Supreme Court’s “constant tinkering with” the doctrine, along with its failure to rely on the doctrine in eight years, there is no reason for anyone to rely on _Chevron_. To the contrary, Roberts suggested, the _Chevron_ doctrine “allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.”