Exercising Independent Judgment
In a June 28, 2024 decision, the United States Supreme Court overruled the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that brought about the Chevron doctrine (See Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837).
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
The Court agreed to address the Chevron issue with respect to two cases, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In the Loper matter, the Court considered a challenge by two commercial fishermen of a rule under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The petitioners argued that the MSA did not authorize the mandate by the National Marine Fisheries Service to require the fishermen to pay for observers as part of a fishery management plan.
The Chevron doctrine provided deference to an agency’s interpretation of statutes by the courts. Specifically, for Chevron to apply, the reviewing court must 1) determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue;” and, if not, 2) the court must “defer to the agency’s interpretation if it ‘is based on a permissible construction of the statute.’” While past applications of this doctrine have considered that deference was due to the technical expertise of agencies, “it does not follow that Congress has taken the power to authoritatively interpret the statute from the courts and given it to the agency.” Justice Roberts opined that “the deference that Chevron requires of courts reviewing agency action cannot be squared with the APA.” Further, Roberts described the Chevron doctrine as “unworkable,” and while in the past courts have adhered to agency decisions and interpretations, the path necessarily needs to be corrected. Agencies cannot be permitted “to change course even when Congress has not given them power to do so.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch noted that “the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.”
The judicial branch is empowered in its role to determine statutory meanings if at issue and to be the interpreter of Congressional acts (Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497,515 (1840)). Within this role, the Court also has the discretion to give due respect to the Executive Branch, as it interprets federal statutes but is not bound by it. It is notable that cases that relied on the Chevron framework are not called into question here, as those are subject to “statutory stare decisis.”
On the other hand, not every justice agreed with the rationale for this decision. Dissenting, Justice Kagan was critical of the decision, as agencies possess the technical and scientific expertise to make decisions regarding the ambiguities of such decisions.
Chevron is overruled.
Judgments of the District Court and First Circuits are vacated. Remanded for further proceedings.