chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

Editor's Column

Summary

  • Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws, a responsibility enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. 
  • The majority opinion criticized Chevron for undermining judicial authority and enabling agencies to shift policy with changing administrations.
  • This decision marks a significant shift toward judicial oversight and away from agency deference, with potential far-reaching implications for regulatory governance and legal predictability.
Editor's Column
urzine via Getty Images

Jump to:

In this issue—the first in a two-part series—we delve into a landmark Supreme Court decision that has sent ripples through the legal community and beyond. The case of Loper Bright has effectively reeled in the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law for nearly four decades.

Our feature article, “Loper Bright: Chevron is the Catch of the Day,” by Joe Cosgrove, Jr., provides an in-depth analysis of this pivotal case. The decision in Loper Bright arose from a dispute over a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requiring fishermen to bear the costs of federal inspectors on their boats. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only addressed the specific issue at hand but also took the opportunity to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine, fundamentally altering the landscape of administrative law.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws, a responsibility enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. The majority opinion criticized Chevron for undermining judicial authority and enabling agencies to shift policy with changing administrations. This decision marks a significant shift toward judicial oversight and away from agency deference, with potential far-reaching implications for regulatory governance and legal predictability.

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent underscored the entrenched nature of Chevron and warned of increased judicial activism and uncertainty in the absence of agency expertise. The debate between judicial interpretation and agency discretion is far from settled, and the legal community must now navigate this new terrain.

As we explore the ramifications of Loper Bright, we invite you to consider the broader questions it raises for infrastructure and regulated industry: Will this decision lead to a surge in litigation challenging agency regulations? How will agencies adapt their rulemaking processes? And what role will Congress play in defining the scope of agency authority moving forward?

The demise of Chevron deference is a watershed moment, and its impact will be felt across all areas of administrative law. We hope this issue provides valuable insights and fosters thoughtful discussion on the future of regulatory governance. And, stay tuned for the next issue in this series, where we will hear perspectives from each of our committees on Loper Bright and its broader impacts on the many industries represented by the ABA Infrastructure and Regulated Industries ­Section.

Timothy McHugh