Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Last updated

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 17, 2024
Decided June 28, 2024
Full case nameLoper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
Relentless, Inc. et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al.
Docket nos. 22-451
22-1219
Citations603 U.S. ___ ( more )
144 S. Ct. 2244
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorLoper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, 45F.4th 359 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Ross, 544F.Supp.3d 82 (D.D.C. 2021).
SubsequentRemanded to D.C. Circuit.
Questions presented
Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Holding
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceThomas
ConcurrenceGorsuch
DissentKagan, joined by Sotomayor; Jackson (as it applies to Relentless)
Jackson (in Loper Bright) [lower-alpha 1] took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), 144 S. Ct. 2244, is a landmark decision [1] of the United States Supreme Court in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies. Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces. [2] [3]

Contents

In lieu of Chevron, the decision assigns the determination of congressional ambiguity to the judicial branch, with executive agency expertise still to be considered under the weaker Skidmore deference. Existing rules and case law already decided under Chevron deference were to remain in place from this decision.

Both cases originated from fishing companies challenging a rule established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fishing companies to pay for the cost of federal monitors that may be assigned to their boats, under authorization of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)). The company claimed that the Act did not allow NMFS to pass the monitors' costs to the fishing companies, challenging Chevron deference that was applied in favor of the NMFS during lower court hearings.

Background

In 1976, Congress passed the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which was intended to provide for the management of marine fisheries in United States waters. One of the provisions of the act is that the National Marine Fisheries Service (a subsidiary agency of the United States Department of Commerce) may require fishing vessels to "carry" federal monitors on board to enforce the agency's regulations, particularly to prevent overfishing. [4]

The New England Council (NEC) is a regional business association that develops fishery management plans for fisheries off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. One such fishery is the herring fishery. Unlike in North Pacific and foreign fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) does not explicitly require Atlantic herring fisheries pay the costs of federal monitors. In addition, budgets for NMFS had been falling in recent years. As a result, NMFS had been unable to pay for increased monitor coverage in the Atlantic herring fishery.

Starting in 2013, the NEC started to implement a workaround to this issue. It began to develop an amendment to the New England fishery management plans that would give the council the power – though not explicitly given in the MSA – to require the fishing industry to pay the costs of additional monitoring. The NEC submitted this amendment to the NMFS, which in February 2020 published its final rule establishing a standardized process that would require industry-funded monitoring across New England fisheries.

Prior precedent

The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that courts must defer to the authority of an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute whenever both the intent of Congress was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable or permissible. In its opinion, the Court outlined a two-step test on when to grant deference, known as Chevron deference. The Court reasoned that ambiguities in statute may be a delegation of authority from Congress, thus limiting a federal court's ability to review an agency's interpretation of the law. In the specific case at the heart of Chevron, the challenge arose from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of what defined a source of production of pollution in its authority granted by Congress through the Clean Air Act.

In the first step of the test, the Court would ask whether there was an unambiguous expression of Congressional intent contained within the statute. If so, then the Court must yield to Congressional intent. If not, then the Court would proceed with the second step of the test. It would ask whether the agency's application of the statute was based on a "reasonable" interpretation of ambiguous wording. If so, then the Court would defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute. If not, then the agency's interpretation would likely be deemed impermissible. Here, reasonability was determined by the specific factual circumstances present in the case.

Since being handed down, Chevron had become among the most frequently cited cases in American administrative law. [5] Over 17,000 lower federal court decisions and 70 decisions by the Supreme Court itself cited Chevron. [6] Between 2003 and 2013, circuit courts applied Chevron in 77% of decisions regarding regulatory disputes. [7]

In years prior to the current case, the Supreme Court, with a majority of conservative justices, had been seen as leading towards weakening or overturning Chevron. In West Virginia v. EPA , 597 U.S. 697 (2022), the Supreme Court ruled against parts of an emissions-related rule created by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that the agency did not consider the costs of implementation of their rule. While this case did not overturn Chevron, it defined the major questions doctrine that was used in future cases to question the interpretation of administrative law when the financial impact of the law had not been considered by the agency, [8] such as in Biden v. Nebraska , 600 U.S. 477 (2023), which blocked President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness project under the HEROES Act for failing to account for its financial cost to states.

Lower courts

Loper Bright Enterprises is a New Jersey–based family-owned herring fishing company operating in the waters of New England; the company estimated the cost of federal monitoring to be about $700 per day. [9] In February 2020, Loper Bright filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the MSA did not authorize the NMFS to mandate industry-funded monitoring of herring fisheries. The District Court, applying Chevron, granted summary judgment in favor of NMFS. Despite Chevron providing deference in the case of an ambiguously worded statute, the District Court found that the MSA unambiguously provides for industry-funded monitoring of the herring fishery, and thus concluded its analysis at the first step of Chevron. The Court acknowledged Loper Bright's arguments regarding ambiguity in the statutory language, but noted that even if these arguments successfully argued for ambiguity in the text, NMFS's interpretation of the MSA would have been a reasonable reading of the statute.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on February 8, 2022. The panel included then-Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Later that month, Jackson was nominated to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Srinivasan was drawn to replace Justice Jackson after her confirmation. Despite hearing oral arguments, Justice Jackson took no part in the decision of the case.

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. However, the Circuit Court did not rest its analysis at the first step of Chevron, concluding that the language of the MSA was not completely unambiguous about whether or not it provides for industry-funded monitoring of the herring fishery. Instead, they concluded their analysis at the second step of Chevron, stating that the NMFS reasonably interpreted the MSA when it came to what the Court deemed the "silence on the issue of cost of at-sea monitoring". Judge Justin R. Walker dissented.

Supreme Court

On November 10, 2022, Loper Bright petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. In its petition for a writ of certiorari , Loper Bright presented two questions to the Court. First, it asked the Court to rule on whether granting the NMFS the power to require domestic vessels to pay the salaries of monitors it carries was based on a proper application of Chevron. Second, it asked the Court to rule on whether Chevron should be overruled outright, or at least limited in its scope. On May 1, 2023, the Court granted the petition, limited to the second question presented. Due to her prior involvement in the case, Justice Jackson recused herself from its proceedings. The Supreme Court later granted the petition to Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce in October 2023, a closely related case originating out of the First Circuit also challenging the fees issued by the NMFS and Chevron deference, with which Justice Jackson had no conflict. [10]

Loper Bright was heard alongside Relentless, Inc. on January 17, 2024. [11] The cases were argued by Roman Martinez (on behalf of Relentless), Paul Clement (on behalf of Loper Bright Enterprises), and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (on behalf of the United States in both cases). Although Justice Jackson recused herself in the Loper Bright decision, she did hear arguments in the consolidated case, Relentless, Inc. [12]

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision striking down Chevron deference. LoperBright was 6-2 with Justice Jackson excused and Relentless was 6-3. [13] [14] [1] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which held that Chevron deference conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as "under the APA, it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says." [12] [15] Justice Roberts continued that "Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions", and the judicial venues allows for additional input from interested parties via amicus briefs. [12] Justice Roberts' opinion stated that prior administrative actions and court decisions decided under Chevron deference are not overturned by this decision, [16] [17] and in lieu of Chevron, agency interpretation can still be respected under the weaker Skidmore deference established in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944). [12] However, Justice Roberts said, the principle of stare decisis does not apply to Chevron deference in general as the court had been struggling to apply it over the last several years, making it unworkable. [12] In the specifics of the Loper Bright case, the majority opinion also found that the 1976 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements. [18]

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence, stating that Chevron deference was inconsistent with both the APA as well as the separation of powers established in the Constitution. [12] Justice Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence, stating "Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding." Justice Gorsuch further wrote that the only change in administrative law going forward is that federal courts should "resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government's favor." [12]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Kagan was critical of the majority's position with concern for the disruption that eliminating Chevron would create. She also wrote that while the majority may believe that agency decisions may still be respected by courts, "if the majority thinks that the same judges who argue today about where 'ambiguity' resides are not going to argue tomorrow about what 'respect' requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed." [12]

Reactions

Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy – which was decided the day prior and limited the ability of agencies to impose penalties through internal tribunals instead of jury trial in court – were seen as cumulation of the current Supreme Court's efforts to weaken the administrative state as part of a conservative agenda against big government. [19] [20]

Environmentalist organizations criticized the decision. The Southern Environmental Law Center issued a statement saying the ruling "shifts power to judges who do not have the expertise of agency staff who live and breathe the science, financial principles, and safety concerns that federal agencies specialize in". Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund warned that the decision “undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters”. [7] The Nation 's Elie Mystal wrote that the decision was "the biggest judicial power grab since 1803", as it can strip power given by Congress to the experts in the appropriate field of the executive branch and place it in the hands of the judiciary for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. [21]

Some commentators, including the dissenting justices, pointed out that the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System could amplify the re-litigation of regulations given Chevron deference because it created a workaround for the six-year statute of limitations for lawsuits. [22]

Administrative-law professors expressed varying opinions about the likely impact of the court's holding. Adrian Vermeule, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, argued that "much or most of what was (somewhat misleadingly) called 'Chevron deference'" could "be recreated under a different label," pointing to language in the majority opinion acknowledging that Congress remains permitted to delegate interpretive authority to agencies via statute. [23] Cass Sunstein, Vermeule's colleague at Harvard and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, stated this possibility but concluded that the decision would likely be more consequential, generating "a significant increase in ideological divisions in the lower courts." [24]

In a congressional hearing on July 10, 2024, Representative Dan Goldman summarized the court's ruling, saying to EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan, "The Loper Bright ruling, as you know, said that the courts should not defer to agency rulemaking if a statute is ambiguous. And instead the courts get to determine whether or not what the statute means. Is that your understanding as well? So that would not require any regulations to be reversed or overturned, correct?" Regan indicated agreement. [3]

Senator Elizabeth Warren led the introduction of the Stop Corporate Capture Act bill in July 2024 that aims to codify Chevron deference into law and effectively reversing Loper Bright, in addition to increasing transparency and efficiency in the rule-making process. [25]

Impact

In 2024, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Air Force refused to comply with an EPA order that they develop a cleanup plan for drinking water around Tucson, Arizona, after the region's groundwater was contaminated by PFAS runoff from nearby Air Force bases. [26]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ While Jackson recused herself in Loper Bright, she participated in Relentless and joined the dissent written by Kagan that was part of the combined slip opinion for both cases.

Related Research Articles

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders, that together form administrative laws that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government, including executive departments and independent agencies. Because Congress, the president, and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the issue of when Chevron deference should be applied. In an 8–1 majority decision, the Court determined that Chevron deference applies when Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000), is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring employees to schedule time off to avoid accruing time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mayo Foundation v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Treasury Department regulation on the grounds that the courts should defer to government agencies in tax cases in absence of an unreasonable decision on the part of the agency.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.

Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. 724 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation applied in United States administrative law cases which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.

Garland v. VanDerStok is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act of 1986's definitions of firearm, firearm frame, and receiver. On June 30, 2023, federal District Court Judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.

New Civil Liberties Alliance(NCLA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest law firm founded in 2017 by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger. The group challenges what it views as unlawful uses of administrative power. Bloomberg Law wrote that the group was founded "to fill a gap in the legal ecosystem: the protection of individual rights from entrenched government regulation."

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal question under review was whether a challenge to the validity of a rule must be brought within six years of the rule's issuance—or instead within six years of when the rule first injures the particular plaintiff challenging the rule. The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the statute of limitations does not start running until the particular plaintiff has been harmed by the agency action.

References

  1. 1 2 Rachel Rodman and Alec Albright (July 8, 2024). "U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Doctrine—What You Need to Know". whitecase.com. White & Case. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning Chevron USA v. National Resources Defense Council and the federal judiciary's forty-year-old practice of deferring to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal laws.
  2. ↑ De Vogue, Ariana; Cove, Devan (May 1, 2023). "Supreme Court to hear major case on limiting the power of federal government, a long-term goal of legal conservatives". CNN . Archived from the original on January 10, 2024. Retrieved May 13, 2023.
  3. 1 2 Kim, Caitlyn (July 11, 2024). "Rep. Boebert, EPA administrator clash over legitimacy of agency and its rules". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved August 16, 2024.
  4. ↑ Elwood, John (March 30, 2023). "Can fishermen be required to pay for federal monitors? And by the way – should Chevron be overruled?". Scotusblog . Archived from the original on March 30, 2023.
  5. ↑ Hickman, Kristin E.; Pierce, Richard J. (2019). Administrative Law Treatise (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 200, §3.2. LCCN   2018043030. OCLC   1053125104.
  6. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2024). "Justices Limit Power of Federal Agencies, Imperiling an Array of Regulations". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved June 29, 2024.
  7. 1 2 Bittle, Jake; Teirstein, Zoya (June 28, 2024). "The Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, gutting federal environmental protections". Grist. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved June 29, 2024.
  8. ↑ Gerstein, Josh; Guillén, Alex (May 1, 2023). "Supreme Court move could spell doom for power of federal regulators". Politico . Archived from the original on July 3, 2024. Retrieved June 30, 2024.
  9. ↑ Liptak, Adam (January 15, 2024). "A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down the Administrative State". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 15, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2024.
  10. ↑ Mcloughlin Jr., James P.; Stukes, Mary Katherine; Werner, Pierce (November 7, 2023). "In Loper Bright and Relentless, Supreme Court returns to high-stakes question of viability of the Chevron doctrine". Reuters . Archived from the original on November 15, 2023. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  11. ↑ Groppe, Maurine (January 17, 2024). "'How do we know where the line is?' Supreme Court considers 'Chevron' doctrine in major case". USA Today . Archived from the original on January 17, 2024. Retrieved January 17, 2024.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Howe, Amy (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved June 29, 2024.
  13. ↑ King, Pamela (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine". E&E Politico. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  14. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2024). "Justices Limit Power of Federal Agencies, Imperiling an Array of Regulations". The New York Times. The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 9, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024.
  15. ↑ Durkee, Alison (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court Strips Power From Federal Agencies—Overturning Decades-Old Precedent". Forbes. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  16. ↑ Zurcher, Anthony; Tawfik, Nada; Lambert, Lisa; Epstein, Kayla (June 28, 2024). "The Chevron deference, and why it mattered". BBC News . Archived from the original on July 15, 2024. Retrieved June 29, 2024.
  17. ↑ Caitlyn Kim (July 11, 2024). "Rep. Boebert, EPA administrator clash over legitimacy of agency and its rules". CPR News. CPR News. Archived from the original on July 15, 2024. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  18. ↑ Daly, Matthew (June 28, 2024). "What it means for the Supreme Court to throw out Chevron decision, undercutting federal regulators". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  19. ↑ Savage, Charlie (June 28, 2024). "Weakening Regulatory Agencies Will Be a Key Legacy of the Roberts Court". The New York Times . Archived from the original on July 9, 2024. Retrieved June 30, 2024.
  20. ↑ Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen and Katie Lobosco (June 30, 2024). "How the Supreme Court's blockbuster 'Chevron' ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy". CNN. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ↑ Mystal, Elie (June 28, 2024). "We Just Witnessed the Biggest Supreme Court Power Grab Since 1803". The Nation . Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved June 30, 2024.
  22. ↑ Adam Liptak; Abbie VanSickle (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court Extends Time Frame for Challenges to Regulations". The New York Times . Archived from the original on July 9, 2024.
  23. ↑ Vermeuele, Adrian. "Chevron By Any Other Name".
  24. ↑ Sunstein, Cass. "The Consequences of Loper Bright".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. ↑ "Democratic senators seek to reverse Supreme Court ruling that restricts federal agency power". NBC News. July 23, 2024. Retrieved August 16, 2024.
  26. ↑ "Air Force Dodges PFAS Water Cleanup in Arizona, Citing Supreme Court Chevron Ruling | Common Dreams". www.commondreams.org. Retrieved August 18, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.