By Ditching Chevron Deference, SCOTUS Drastically Changes the Litigation and Compliance Landscape

On June 28, the Supreme Court overruled four decades of case law that required courts defer to federal agencies charged with implementing laws under their purview. “Chevron deference,” as the doctrine was known, required that courts defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of statutes those agencies were charged with enforcing — so long as the agencies’ interpretation was reasonable and even if the statute-in-question could be read differently. In more recent years, however, signs emerged that the future of Chevron was in doubt. Ultimately, those reading the ‘anti-Chevron’ tea leaves were right, as the Supreme Court overruled this precedent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has set in motion a major shift in the world of administrative law which will have massive implications on how federal regulations are challenged, interpreted, and drafted.Forty years ago, the Supreme Court decided Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., creating a two-step framework to interpret statutes administered by federal agencies, colloquially known as Chevron deference. Chevron deference requires courts first ask whether Congress has directly addressed the precise question at issue. If the answer is “yes,” that is the end of the matter, meaning the court must give effect to…