The Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling from 1984, which required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. The 6-2 decision marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and executive agencies.
The case involved challenges from fishermen in Rhode Island and New Jersey against a NOAA rule mandating a $700 per day payment for at-sea monitors. The fishermen argued that this rule exceeded the authority granted to NOAA by Congress and threatened their businesses.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, declared, “Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” He emphasized that the APA requires careful judicial review to ensure agencies do not overstep their bounds.
Justice Clarence Thomas supported the ruling, criticizing Chevron deference as a disruption of the separation of powers. “Chevron deference was ‘not a harmless transfer of power,’” Thomas wrote, arguing that it allowed executive agencies to wield powers not constitutionally assigned to them.
The ruling has been lauded by many in the fishing industry. Jerry Leeman, CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, praised the decision, stating, “We are grateful to the Supreme Court for recognizing the concerns of American fishermen about overregulation. This decision supports our fight against burdensome rules.”
Conversely, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, defending the Chevron precedent as essential for effective governance. Kagan argued that agencies possess the expertise necessary to resolve regulatory ambiguities and that courts should defer to them. “Chevron is about respecting the allocation of responsibility—the conferral of primary authority over regulatory matters to agencies, not courts,” she wrote.
The decision impacts how federal agencies will operate, requiring them to navigate more stringent judicial scrutiny when interpreting laws. This landmark ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive power and ensuring agencies remain within their legal limits.
As the legal community and regulated industries adjust to this new paradigm, the ruling marks a pivotal change in administrative law, reinforcing the principle that courts, not agencies, have the final say in interpreting statutes.
