Chevron Doctrine Overruled: Exploring the U.S. Supreme’s Court Decision
The Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter’s webinar, The Supreme Court Overruled the Chevron Doctrine. Now What?, examined the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision to overturn Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in the cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. This ruling fundamentally redefined the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary, reshaping administrative law and statutory interpretation.
Moderated by Frank Citera, Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, the panel featured legal professionals Michelle Kallen (Partner, Steptoe LLP), Kyle R. Freeny (Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig, LLP), and Andrew Tsui (Of Counsel, Greenberg Traurig, LLP). Together, they explored the far-reaching implications of the decision and how legal professionals, agencies, and industries must adapt to this significant shift in administrative law.
The Fall of the Chevron Doctrine: A Turning Point in Administrative Law
The Chevron doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in 1984, had been a cornerstone of federal administrative law, requiring courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. However, in June 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this precedent, ruling that courts must now independently interpret such statutes without granting deference to agency interpretations.
The panelists highlighted that this decision fundamentally changes how courts and federal agencies operate. The Chevron doctrine had enabled agencies to exercise regulatory authority within their expertise, providing stability in the interpretation and enforcement of federal statutes. With its reversal, federal agencies face increased judicial scrutiny, which may limit their regulatory power and reshape future legal battles.
The discussion traced the historical roots of the Chevron doctrine and its application across regulatory domains, emphasizing how its removal shifts interpretative authority back to the judiciary. This change is expected to influence ongoing and future cases involving environmental regulations, healthcare policy, and financial oversight.
Legal Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Overrule Chevron
The panel explored the ruling's legal implications, focusing on how federal agencies must now adjust their statutory interpretations to withstand heightened judicial review. They noted that courts would likely adopt a stricter approach when evaluating agencies' regulatory decisions, requiring more precise statutory language from Congress to avoid interpretative disputes.
The panel also addressed concerns about increased litigation as businesses and individuals may challenge agency interpretations more frequently. This change could slow the regulatory process, potentially leading to regulatory uncertainty across various sectors. Legal professionals advising regulated entities must prepare for a new legal environment marked by more contentious interpretations of administrative law.
In this context, the panel discussed how Congress might respond by drafting clearer legislative language to minimize judicial intervention. Legislative drafting may become more precise and technical, limiting agencies' interpretative discretion and reinforcing a more rigid statutory framework.
The Administrative Procedure Act and Judicial Interpretation
Central to the Supreme Court’s ruling was its interpretation of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires courts to determine the meaning of statutes independently. The panelists emphasized that the decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation while significantly reducing the authority of federal agencies.
They explained that agencies must now reconsider how they craft regulations and policies, ensuring their statutory interpretations can survive judicial challenges. This approach may lead to slower administrative processes as agencies balance legal compliance with operational effectiveness.
The panelists also considered how this change could lead to inconsistent court rulings, with different courts interpreting federal statutes differently in the absence of agency guidance. This judicial fragmentation could further complicate legal compliance and increase uncertainty for regulated industries.
Industry-Specific Impacts: Healthcare, Financial Services, and Regulatory Compliance
The panel examined how the Chevron doctrine’s reversal could reshape specific industries, focusing on healthcare, financial services, and regulatory compliance. Andrew Tsui addressed how the healthcare sector, particularly Medicare and Medicaid programs, could face operational challenges due to shifting legal interpretations. Agencies overseeing these programs will need to ensure their rules withstand stricter judicial review.
Kyle R. Freeny provided insights on how the financial services industry could encounter similar regulatory shifts. Without Chevron deference, financial enforcement agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) may face more legal challenges when interpreting statutes governing anti-money laundering and international financial crimes.
Michelle Kallen discussed how the ruling could disrupt industries dependent on stable regulatory frameworks, such as environmental compliance and technology. With agencies facing greater judicial oversight, companies operating in these sectors may need to reevaluate their compliance strategies and prepare for heightened legal scrutiny.
Key Takeaways After the Supreme Court Overruled Chevron
The webinar offered valuable insights into the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine and its wide-ranging implications for federal administrative law. The decision shifts interpretative authority from federal agencies to the judiciary, creating a more complex legal environment for businesses, legal professionals, and government regulators.
Panelists stressed the importance of preparing for increased litigation and adapting legal strategies to align with the evolving statutory interpretation landscape. Legal professionals and policymakers must monitor ongoing court cases and legislative responses that will continue to shape administrative law in the post-Chevron era.
The Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter remains committed to offering meaningful educational opportunities on key legal issues. Connect with panelists Michelle Kallen, Kyle R. Freeny, Andrew Tsui, and moderator Frank Citera on LinkedIn to continue the conversation about the Chevron doctrine’s reversal and its implications for administrative law.
To stay updated on future opportunities through the Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter, please explore our upcoming events!
