SCOTUS Justices Debate Chevron’s Fate
In much anticipated oral arguments lasting several hours, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard argument in two cases challenging the 40 year-old Chevron decision instructing courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Justices questioned whether overturning Chevron would result in judges legislating from the bench or diminish the principle of stare decisis, which strongly favors adhering to Supreme Court precedent. The questioning diverged along ideological lines, with the conservative majority appearing more open to modifying or eliminating Chevron deference and the liberal minority favoring its continued application. Clausen Miller shareholder Melinda Kollross and partner Don Sampen authored an amicus brief on behalf of the DRI Center for Public Policy in one of the two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451.
The Center’s amicus brief was filed in support of the petitioners but takes the position that the agency’s authority should be tested under the “major questions doctrine” rather than the traditional Chevron doctrine. Under the major questions doctrine, a court first looks to determine whether the agency’s action is “extraordinary,” and, if so, whether Congress has provided clear authorization. In the absence of clear authorization, the agency’s action is deemed invalid.
Melinda S. Kollross
Don R. Sampen