Courthouse Steps Decision: Loper Bright & Relentless

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.
In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.
On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.
This was a courthouse steps program where we discussed and broke down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[@shawnsantiago8636]

I remember every scholar predicting that the court would “kisor”-ize chevron doctrine, notably, because everyone thought they wouldn’t pull the plug. I don’t remember reading any reference to kisor v wilkie in the opinion, but i could be wrong

[@joshhawkins2765]

Roberts’ concurrence in Kisor basically said that they weren’t gonna do that

[@LegalesePodcast]

Kisor is cited in Gorsuch's concurrence and Kagan's dissent.

[@shawnsantiago8636]

@@LegalesePodcast thank you!

[@LegalesePodcast]

@@shawnsantiago8636 given the oral arguments in this case it seemed pretty clear they were going to do what they basically did, replace Chevron with Skidmore.

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

Wonder who might have influenced this big reversal 😊 team effort

[@LegalesePodcast]

I especially wonder who or what got the Chief Justice on board. He's always seemed to believe stare decisis should take precedent (pun intended) over fixing mistakes from the past. Now, he didn't merely change his mind, his majority opinion was one of the most finely crafted arguments for overturning Chevron I have ever read.