Supreme Court curbs federal agencies’ regulatory authority, reversing 40-year-old Chevron precedent

The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that gave federal agencies discretion to interpret ambiguous statutes when writing and enforcing regulations.

Six conservative Supreme Court justices voted to overturn the so-called “Chevron Doctrine,” which has its roots in a 1984 case and affects everything from enforcement of clean air and water laws to FCC rules on broadcasting and the Internet.

More from Deadline

“Chevron objects to the (Administrative Procedure Act) mandate that the ‘reviewing court’ — not the body whose actions it reviews — ‘decide all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret . . . statutory provisions,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

He added that “Chevron cannot be reconciled with the APA, as the government and dissenters claim, on the assumption that statutory ambiguities are implied delegations to the agency.”

Read the Supreme Court’s opinion reversing the Chevron ruling.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that in the majority ruling, “the Court flips the script: now ‘courts (not agencies)’ will exercise authority, with Congress left with interpretive discretion. The principle of judicial humility gives way to the principle of judicial hubris.”

She added: “In one fell swoop, today’s majority has given itself exclusive authority over every open
problem — no matter how technically based or politically charged — about the importance of regulatory law. As if it didn’t have enough on its plate, most turn themselves into the administrative czar of the country.”

The decision makes it all the more likely that any regulation will be challenged unless more concrete action is taken by Congress. Conservatives and business groups have long had the “Chevron Doctrine” in their crosshairs, and the majority decision is hardly a surprise, given the court’s rightward shift.

Best of Deadline