On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.
The Chevron doctrine is a longstanding standard for decision-making that required Federal courts to defer to reasonable agency decisions where Federal law is silent or unclear. Though it historically garnered little attention, the doctrine had powerful practical effect, as it provided Federal agencies the power to publish necessary administrative rules interpreting vague or unclear Federal laws passed by Congress, essentially filling in the gaps left by Federal law. For areas of complicated Federal law like health care that require detailed knowledge and expertise, the ability of the pertinent regulatory agency to expound on Federal law served to facilitate the operations of Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts supported the end of Chevron based on its “misguided” presumption that federal agencies have competence to resolve statutory ambiguities. That competence rests with the Federal court system, not Federal agencies, according to Chief Justice Roberts.
Following the fall of Chevron, courts will not have to accept agency expertise in their review of challenged regulations, shifting from Federal agency expertise to generalist courts' interpretations of Federal law.
In short, Friday's ruling will likely impede the ability of Federal agencies to implement laws passed by Congress. Though agencies' regulations will still have the force and effect of law, there will be a new incentive to challenge these rules in a court that will not have to afford deference to agency expertise where statutes are not clear. Overturning Federal regulations will result in barriers to implementing Federal programs.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.