How the Changing Law of Chevron Deference Might Affect Texas

On Jan. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two matters, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, that could significantly change how federal courts are to review decisions made by federal agencies. Since 1984, Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council set the standard for when courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law and became an essential component of modern administrative law. Commonly referred to as “Chevron deference,” the Supreme Court held generally that if a court determines a statutory provision is ambiguous, it should defer to the agency’s interpretation so long as the agency is charged with administering the statute and its interpretation is reasonable.

In practice, Chevron deference has often allowed federal agencies to “fill gaps” and implement policy decisions in areas such as environmental, health, safety and financial standards where the statute may not be express. A central tenet to the doctrine is that agencies are experts in their field and better suited to interpret statutes in their area of expertise than the courts. However, the issues before the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc. call the doctrine’s viability into question.