Background
Landmark Legal Foundation spent years fighting to overturn Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 Supreme Court decision that enabled massive, unconstitutional growth in the federal administrative state.
We won an important victory in 2022, with the Court’s decision in West Virgina v. EPA, which curtailed some of the worst elements of Chevron. Two years later, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron and restored Congress’ primary role in the lawmaking process.
Landmark filed briefs at multiple stages in this process, encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron and restore constitutional separation of powers.
Chevron deference
The 1984 Chevron decision developed into a landmark precedent that guided administrative law for decades. In resolving disputes about the authority of executive agencies, “Chevron deference” instructed courts to defer to the agency’s own interpretation of its enabling statute. This effectively allowed federal bureaucrats to define the scope of their own authority and made it extremely difficult to successfully challenge the actions of administrative agencies.
West Virginia v. EPA
In 2015, then-President Obama ordered the EPA to develop and implement a new rule, known as the “Clean Power Plan,” (CPP) that would “drive a[n] . . . aggressive transformation in the domestic energy industry.”
Obama’s proposed CPP would result in “generation shifting,” which changes how electricity is produced, moving from sources such as coal to renewable resources such as solar or wind power. These shifts would have caused wholesale electricity prices to rise by $214 billion and the price of energy for specific states to increase by 25%. Implementing the CPP was expected to reduce GDP by at least one trillion dollars by 2040. West Virginia joined several other states in challenging the CPP’s legality.
Landmark’s brief
We submitted a brief in support of West Virginia’s challenge. We argued that “Administrative agencies operate only under the authority granted to them by Congress.” Therefore, rules such as the Clean Power Plan, with major political and economic implications, require a clear mandate from Congress.
Read Landmark’s West Virginia v. EPA brief here.
Supreme Court decision
In a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had violated the “major questions doctrine” by enacting a regulation with such vast political and economic significance. The Court said that this could not be done without explicit permission from Congress.
With this victory, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our Framers vision of separation of powers. This opinion returned decision-making authority to the Congress—the branch directly accountable to the American people.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
This case involved attempts by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to force fishermen to pay the salaries of federal monitors. These monitors, working for the NMFS, are required to periodically inspect the boats and fishing practices of groups such as Loper Bright Enterprises.
The government argued that it has its statutory authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) to force the operators of small fishing vessels to pay the aforementioned monitors. It justifies this action using three independent provisions of the MSA. The lower courts, bound by the precedent of Chevron, had to rule for the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
The Supreme Court, which had already limited the scope of Chevron deference in West Virgina v. EPA, agreed to hear the case and consider whether to overturn Chevron entirely.
Landmark’s brief
Landmark presented the Court with four arguments for overruling Chevron. First, Landmark noted that, despite several recent Supreme Court rulings blocking instances of federal overreach, agencies continue to go beyond their statutory authority. They still believe themselves to be secure from challenge due to Chevron deference. Landmark argued that overturning Chevron was essential to restoring the balance of powers and limiting the size and scope of the administrative state.
A second major issue was that, instead of relying on the interpretation of ambiguous language to justify its actions, the NMFS created these new rules out of thin air. If statutory silence is allowed to trigger Chevron deference, then any action that is not expressly prohibited by Congress may be considered permissible.
Third, Landmark demonstrated that Chevron deference violated the principle of separation of powers. Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to legislate. Article III empowers the courts to review and rule on the legality of government action. Chevron deference violated both. It allows administrative agencies to create powers that were not expressly delegated by the legislature, and it blocks courts from reviewing this conduct. Under Chevron, there was a clear accumulation of power in the executive branch, and agencies are given the leeway to act in any way they deem appropriate.
Finally, Landmark argued that Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA does not provide agencies with deference they have received since Chevron. On the contrary, it gave the courts the ability to determine “all relevant questions of law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. The reading and interpretation of statutes is considered a relevant question of law, and therefore deference to agencies contravenes the APA.
Read Landmark’s Loper v. Raimondo brief here.
Supreme Court decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Chevron. Moving forward, this means private litigants who challenge agency overreach will now have a fair opportunity to succeed in front of federal judges.
This ruling recognized the damage done by Chevron deference. Deferring to an agency’s interpretation of statutory language allowed the administrative state to grow beyond anything our founders could have imagined. Our Constitution assigns law-making power to the Congress. In theory, government agencies can only exercise those powers Congress has given them. For years, however, agencies felt free to grossly exceed their statutory authority. But this ruling signals that those days are ending.