A seismic shift in administrative law occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court discarded the Chevron doctrine.
According to Breitbart, the Court's latest ruling states that judicial bodies, not federal agencies, should interpret ambiguous statutes.
In the historic sessions of June 30, 2024, the Supreme Court made a major decision affecting the structure of federal regulatory authority. The long-standing Chevron precedent, established in 1984, had permitted agencies wide latitude in the interpretation of ambiguous laws, trusting their expertise over these complex matters. This broad deference has now been curtailed, amplifying the courts’ roles in directly interpreting statutory ambiguities.
The decision came down firmly with a 6-3 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, emphasized restoring the judiciary's primary role in law interpretation as intended by the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
For Chief Justice John Roberts, clarity in judicial power was fundamental, "Cognizant of the limits of human language and foresight, [those who wrote the Constitution] anticipated that all new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, would be more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning was settled by a series of particular discussions and adjudications," Roberts noted. "The Framers also envisioned that the final interpretation of the laws would be the proper and peculiar province of the courts."
The Chevron doctrine, criticized for being "indeterminate and sweeping," had evolved into a stance where courts would often defer to agencies’ interpretations in cases of statutory ambiguity. This decision has reinforced that, going forward, the judiciary must not yield its interpretative duties to administrative bodies.
This judgment saw notable concurrences from Justices Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They supported the main opinion, aligning with Chief Justice Roberts on the necessity of this doctrinal shift. In contrast, Justice Elena Kagan, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, underscoring her concern over the potential repercussions this shift might have on the administration's ability to effectively govern.
The majority underscored the APA's mandate that legal questions should be resolved by judicial, not administrative, interpretation, especially when laws are unclear. This reassertion seeks to place checks on the agencies whose "zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices," a point underlined in the court's opinion.
Furthermore, the court critically evaluated the Chevron doctrine's foundation, which it saw as lacking in rigorous reasoning and workability. The principles of stare decisis, which generally encourage courts to follow precedents, were considered and found wanting in this case.
With the Chevron precedent overturned, future agency actions will encounter a more stringent judicial review.
The majority concluded unequivocally that courts must utilize their autonomous judgment to determine whether an agency's actions align within the bounds set by law as the APA mandates.
As the landscape of administrative law stands profoundly altered, all eyes will be on how both federal agencies and the courts navigate these uncharted waters.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores a pivotal turning point, redefining the balance of power between the administrative entities and the judicial system.
