On January 17, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in two cases that could determine whether the long-standing deference granted by courts to federal agencies will remain intact.
The related cases – Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce – were argued back-to-back. Despite the cases being about the fishing industry, the impacts of the cases could be wide-reaching in terms of administrative law because of their challenge of the Chevron doctrine. The doctrine, which arose from a 1984 SCOTUS case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, acknowledges the subject-matter expertise of federal agencies and grants deference to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language.
Unsurprisingly, the Court’s left-leaning justices appeared adamantly opposed to the proposed dismantling of Chevron, citing the severe burden that would likely be placed on the court system anytime all aspects of an agency’s authority were not explicitly defined by Congress. While the moderate conservative justices raised questions about the inconsistency of the doctrine's application and the potential impacts of revoking it, the more conservative justices appeared more skeptical and seemed to think that a lower level of federal agency deference may be called for.
SCOTUS is expected to make a decision in this case before its summer recess, which typically begins in late June/early July. The oral arguments can be found here.
For questions on this article, please contact Renée Lani of APGA staff by phone at 202-464-0836 or by email at rlani@apga.org.