How ‘Chevron’ May Fall

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both challenging the doctrine of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). The central question in Loper Bright and Relentless is whether the Court should discard the rule of Chevron that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a federal statute it is charged with enforcing, if the Court thinks the statute is “silent or ambiguous” and the agency’s interpretation is a “reasonable” one. That deference applies even if it produces a reading of the meaning of the law that is not how the Court itself would interpret it in the absence of an agency rule.

The Constitutional and Structural Argument

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both challenging the doctrine of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). The central question in Loper Bright and Relentless is whether the Court should discard the rule of Chevron that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a federal statute it is charged with enforcing, if the Court thinks the statute is “silent or ambiguous” and the agency’s interpretation is a “reasonable” one. That deference applies even if it produces a reading of the meaning of the law that is not how the Court itself would interpret it in the absence of an agency rule.

The Constitutional and Structural Argument