The Court’s Ruling:
Here, the Court overruled the “Chevron Deference” Doctrine it established in the 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel.[1] There, the Court held that federal courts, including itself, were required to defer to a federal administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own statutory authority, even if the court believed that a better, but still reasonable interpretation of that statutory authority was alternatively available.[2] Back here, the Court held that the “Chevron Deference” doctrine that emerged from its 1984 Chevron Case was inconsistent with the statutory “judicial review” provisions of the federal Administrative Procedures Act, that seemingly gave federal courts ultimate and final interpretative authority over statutes creating and authorizing federal administrative agencies.[3] The vote on the Court was 6-3, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting.
My Opinion:
The Court correctly discerned that the federal Administrative Procedures Act, a Congressional enactment, comprehensively governed the relationship between federal courts and most federal administrative agencies, and that that statute imposed no duty of deference on federal courts to the interpretation of statutes creating and authorizing federal administrative agencies. The one word of reservation the Court should have added to its decision to overrule Chevron is that courts have no power whatsoever to choose between policy alternatives given to administrative agencies by their authorizing statutes.[4]
Dan D. Rhea
[1] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
[2] See Chevron, supra, 467 U.S. at 833-834.
[3] See Loper slip opinion, section II(C), pp. 13-18; see also 5 U.S.C. § 706.
[4] See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 1; Art. II, § 1; and Art. III, § 1.
RECENT RULINGS 