Autor: Shelby Benavidez 

Abogado colaborador: Matthew Brunell, attorney 

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision that could change the way federal agencies make and enforce rules. The Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, a legal principle that had guided courts for over 40 years. Under Chevron, when a law was unclear, agencies had the final say – as long as their interpretation was reasonable – while courts usually deferred to them. 

Now, that deference is gone. Courts must use their own judgment, even when a law falls into a gray area. This shift could change the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts, and it may affect how regulations are written and enforced. In this blog, we’ll break down the Chevron doctrine, explain why the Supreme Court made its decision, and explore what it could mean for everyday Americans. 

What the Chevron Doctrine Was and Why It Mattered   

What Is the Chevron Doctrine? Understanding the Supreme Court’s Landmark Rule  

In the late 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was trying to enforce the Clean Air Act. This law was designed to reduce air pollution across the country, but like many laws, it left some details vague.  

One question was about the word “stationary source.” Did this mean that every single piece of pollution-causing equipment in a factory (like smokestacks, boilers, etc.) had to meet certain environmental standards? Or could the whole factory, treated as one unit, count as a single “source”?  

The EPA chose the second option – it treated an entire industrial plant as one “source.” This made it easier for factories to modernize because they didn’t need to bring every single piece of equipment up to standard as long as the plant, overall, didn’t increase pollution.  

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, disagreed. They argued that the EPA’s interpretation was too lenient and that the law should be read more strictly to control pollution. So, they took the EPA to court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EPA, deciding that when a law is unclear, courts should defer to the interpretation of the federal agency responsible for enforcing that law. This ultimately became known as the Chevron Doctrine in 1984.  

Why Chevron Was Important for Federal Agencies   

Chevron became a key rule in U.S. law because it basically made it easier for federal agencies to do their jobs. Before Chevron, courts could strike down agency decisions simply because judges interpreted the law differently from the agency. After Chevron, agencies had more freedom to apply certain rules and regulations without constant pushback from the courts.  

For example, the EPA could set pollution limits under the Clean Air Act, and the Department of Labor could create workplace safety rules, knowing their decisions were less likely to be overturned. This approach made the rulemaking process smoother and allowed agencies to work more effectively.  

Why Lawmakers and Critics Challenged the Chevron Doctrine 

Despite its benefits, not everyone supported Chevron. Many people argued that Chevron gave too much power to unelected government officials, letting agencies create rules that carried the weight of law. Critics also said it made it harder to fight unfair or harmful regulations, since courts usually sided with the agency’s interpretation. Over time, these concerns grew stronger, paving the way for the Supreme Court to eventually strike it down.  

The Supreme Court’s Ruling and Its Immediate Impacts   

Loper Bright v. Raimondo: The Case That Overturned Chevron   

En 2024, the Supreme Court heard a case involving Loper Bright Enterprises, a family-owned fishing company from New Jersey, and Gina Raimondo, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The dispute centered on a regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the Department of Commerce. This regulation required fishing companies to fund the salaries of federal monitors on their vessels to observe fishing activities. Loper Bright argued that this mandate was not authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which governs marine fisheries. They argued that the MSA didn’t authorize this kind of industry-paid monitoring, so the rule was illegal.  

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loper Bright, overturning the Chevron doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to decide “all relevant questions of law,” which includes determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. This means courts can’t just go along with an agency’s interpretation when a law is unclear.  

Courts Now Have the Final Say on Unclear Laws  

Now that Chevron has been overturned, federal agencies will be watched more closely by the courts. They can’t assume judges will automatically agree with their interpretations of the law. This means every rule they make could be reviewed in detail, and agencies will need to explain their decisions more carefully. As a result, it might take longer for new rules to go into effect, since agencies will likely move more cautiously to avoid legal challenges.  

Real-World Effects of Overturning Chevron   

The end of Chevron could have major effects on areas like environmental protection, workplace safety, and other regulations that affect daily life. For example, the EPA sets rules to limit pollution from factories, power plants, and vehicles. Under Chevron, courts often accepted the agency’s interpretation of laws like the Clean Air Act, even when the law was vague. Now, companies can challenge those rules more easily in court, and judges will decide for themselves whether the EPA has the legal authority to enforce them. This could slow down or even block certain environmental protections, depending on the court’s interpretation.  

Similarly, the Department of Labor sets rules to keep workplaces safe, like limits on chemical exposure, machinery safety standards, or maximum work hours. In the past, courts often deferred to the agency’s expertise. Now, agencies will have to provide detailed legal justification for every rule, and courts could overturn rules they find too broad or unsupported by the law.   

Overall, this ruling shifts power from agencies to the courts, giving judges a much larger role in interpreting laws and potentially reshaping how regulations affect businesses and the public.  

What the Chevron Overturn Means for Businesses and the Public   

How Businesses May Be Affected by Chevron’s Overturn   

The Supreme Court’s decision could have a range of effects on businesses, and not all of them are easy to predict. Some companies might benefit if certain regulations are overturned or scaled back. For example, industries like energy, manufacturing, and transportation could see fewer restrictions on emissions or workplace requirements, which could reduce the cost and complexity of compliance.  

On the other hand, the ruling could increase uncertainty for businesses. Courts may now interpret laws differently from the agencies that wrote the rules, leading to inconsistent decisions across different regions or courts. This could create a patchwork of regulations that businesses must follow, making planning and operations more complicated.  

In addition, companies may face more frequent legal challenges. Rules that were once considered solid under Chevron could now be questioned in court. For instance, a safety or environmental regulation that has been in place for years might be reopened and potentially overturned, forcing businesses to adjust their practices unexpectedly. Overall, while some firms may see short-term benefits, the long-term effect could be a more unpredictable regulatory landscape that requires businesses to be more vigilant and adaptable.  

How the Public Could Experience Changes in Regulations   

For the public, the Supreme Court’s decision could change protections for health, safety, and the environment. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Department of Agriculture may have less power to enforce rules that keep our food safe. Limits on factory and car pollution could face legal challenges, making it harder to maintain clean air.  

Workplace safety rules could also be affected because the Department of Labor may have to defend safety regulations more rigorously, making it harder to keep dangerous working conditions in check. Laws that protect the environment could face legal challenges, which might let pollution and other harms continue. 

Even consumer protections could be impacted. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may find it harder to enforce rules against scams, false advertising, or unfair business practices if courts take a closer, independent look at the laws. Overall, this decision could slow down or change protections that people rely on in their everyday lives.  

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron marks a major shift in how federal agencies make and enforce rules. Courts now have the final say on unclear laws, which means agencies must explain and defend their regulations more carefully. This change affects everyone from businesses navigating new legal uncertainties to everyday people relying on protections for health, safety, and the environment. While some rules may be challenged or altered, the ruling helps courts play a stronger role in holding agencies accountable. As this new era unfolds, both agencies and the public will need to adapt to a system where the balance of power between courts and federal agencies has changed.