The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron Deference doctrine has sparked a wave of concern and confusion among the public. However, the decision does not signify the end of democracy, but rather a return to a more traditional legal review of an administrative agency’s authority. This decision resets the standard for how courts review an agency’s delegated authority.
The Chevron doctrine, which originated from the 1984 case Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., established a two-step process for reviewing an agency’s authority to act based on the original law and the agency’s interpretation. Over the years, the scope of Chevron was narrowed through a series of Supreme Court opinions. The recent decision in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the Chevron Deference, placing a heavier burden on agencies to prove they have the authority to create rules.
The history of administrative agencies in the United States dates back to the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. Initially, the concept of independent agencies was limited, with the ICC only having the power to regulate, not legislate. As the need for independent agencies grew, the Court amended the non-delegation doctrine to allow Congress to delegate regulatory authority as long as it presented an “intelligible principle” for the regulations.
During the New Deal era, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced various reforms to address the Great Depression, leading to the creation of numerous agencies. This expansion pushed the boundaries of the non-delegation doctrine and resulted in legal challenges before the Supreme Court. The Court, influenced by its conservative and liberal factions, issued opinions overturning New Deal policies, sparking a period of tension between the branches of government.
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 aimed to provide a framework of processes and limitations for agencies to operate within. Rather than delegating broad lawmaking authority to agencies, Congress passed laws with general guidelines and allowed agencies to create rules within the delegated authority. The rule-making process under the APA has been effective in allowing agencies to regulate specific details of laws while receiving public input.
Moving forward, the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron Deference signifies a shift in how courts will review an agency’s authority to act. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising independent judgment in determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as required by the APA. While this decision may impact certain regulations, it does not prevent agencies from creating rules within the bounds of their delegated authority, as long as it aligns with the will of Congress.