Chevron Deference Cornell

Introduction to Chevron Deference

Definition: Chevron deference refers to a legal doctrine in administrative law under which courts historically deferred to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes that the agency administers.

Origin of the Doctrine: The doctrine originated with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).

Step 1: Determine whether Congress has directly addressed the specific issue in question.
- Outcome if Yes: The court and the agency must adhere to congressional intent.
- Outcome if No: Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: Evaluate whether the agency’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable.
- Outcome if Yes: The court must defer to the agency's interpretation, even if it holds a different view on how to interpret the statute.

For approximately 40 years, Chevron deference stood as a cornerstone principle guiding how courts interpret agency actions and statutory ambiguities.

Date: In June 2024, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case.
Court's Declaration: The ruling emphasized that:
- Deference only applies to interpretations by agencies managing the statute, not to self-assessments of jurisdiction by those agencies.
- True Chevron deference must arise from formalized processes such as adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Less formal guidance, such as opinion letters or policy statements, would not be afforded standard Chevron deference and fall under Skidmore deference instead.

Definition: Skidmore deference is a more limited form of deference based on how persuasive the agency's interpretation is, rather than an automatic acceptance.

APA Section 706 Reassertion: The ruling reasserts that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Section 706:
- Courts must adjudicate all pertinent legal questions.
- Courts are required to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.
- Courts determine the meaning and applicability of terms within agency actions.
Rejection of Ambiguity as Intent: The decision disapproves the Chevron assumption that ambiguity in a statute implies Congressional intent to delegate authority to fill gaps in legislation.
- Ambiguity may be due to unintentional oversights.
- Courts must maintain their own interpretative roles, defining the scope of agency authority and ensuring that agency actions are rational and consistent with statutory mandates.
Continued Relevance of Agency Interpretations: Although agencies may offer interpretations, those are no longer automatically granted deference. Their interpretations could still be influential particularly when grounded in the factual and technical expertise of the agency.

The overruling of Chevron marks a significant shift in administrative law, emphasizing judicial interpretation and the limits of agency powers in statutory interpretation.