Chevron, the Case That Created the Unbridled Power of the Deep State, Has Been Overturned by the Supreme Court

Today, in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Court’s ruling represents a tremendous victory in the fight to curb government overreach.

Last July, we filed an amicus brief in this case urging the Court to overrule Chevron. Today the Supreme Court did just that in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, agreeing with us that it was long past time for Chevron – the case that has been used to give countless administrative agencies immense and unchecked power – to go.

Forty years ago, Chevron completely distorted the separation of powers principles that this nation was founded upon. That case mandated that courts defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute when the statute is silent or ambiguous. The alarming effect of Chevron was to put the power to interpret what a law means into the hands of the bureaucratic agencies themselves rather than the Judicial branch. As a result, the administrative state’s power grew out of control.

As we noted in our amicus brief, “Chevron effectuated a seismic shift in power to the executive branch from the legislative and judicial branches of government.” Moreover, Chevron allowed Congress to intentionally enact ambiguous legislation to keep the interpretation out of a judge’s hands.

Even when the number and size of administrative agencies took off in the 1940s during the New Deal Era, Congress was cognizant of the separation of powers principles at stake. In fact, it passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA provides that courts – not agencies – “shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” As Chief Justice Roberts stated today, “The APA, in short, incorporates the traditional understanding of the judicial function, under which courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.”

In 1984, however, the Court in Chevron ignored the APA and crafted the infamous deference doctrine mentioned above. As we argued in our amicus brief, the Chevron ruling runs afoul of the clear directives of the APA. Chief Justice Roberts agreed, stating in the opinion today that “Chevron defies the command of the APA” and “turns the statutory scheme for judicial review upside down.” Subsequent cases never attempted to reconcile this deference with the APA.

Dating back to Chief Justice Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary’s role has always been “to say what the law is.” Echoing another argument we presented in our amicus brief, Chief Justice Roberts explained that Alexander Hamilton and the Framers of the Constitution shared the same views as they “envisioned that the final ‘interpretation of the laws’ would be ‘the proper and peculiar province of the courts.’” The decision today places this vital role back into the courts’ hands and constrains the reach and power of administrative agencies.

To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts stated:

Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

In short, the impact of this case is substantial. While the Court explained that its decision today in Loper does not call into question prior cases that relied upon Chevron, it will certainly impact a slew of new regulations implemented by the Biden Administration on the environment and many others as we inch closer to Election Day. Rather than deferring to these agencies’ interpretation, courts will now have to exercise their own independent judgment in determining the legality and constitutionality of these Executive branch actions.

This is only the beginning. These consolidated cases will now go back to the district courts, where the fight will continue.

Although now substantially limited, the power of administrative agencies should be eye-opening to all. The ACLJ will continue to fight to uphold the Constitution and maintain the original separation of powers principles intended by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.