The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided multiple administrative law cases this term, but in no majority opinion did the Court cite its landmark 1984 precedent Chevron v. NRDC. The lack of citation to Chevron raises an important question: Is the Court ignoring the Chevron doctrine (which provides for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)? Whatever the status of Chevron at the Supreme Court, lower courts continue to apply the doctrine. Scholars have lodged thoughtful critiques of Chevron's rule, but after October Term 2021, its continued vitality is unclear.
This panel analyzed what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[@leestarling2671]

If the SCOTUS is "teeing up" a case that would lead to the elimination of Chevron, I hope they don't wait too long. This 6-3 arrangement of justices can change without notice (i.e.; Justice Scalia's death; Justice Ginsberg's death). Find a case, grant the cert, and let's get it done!

[@OTRTrader]

I realize I'm a bit late here, but I agree completely. I'm actually surprised that the court hasn't even set an argument date yet, but other cases are being calendared. I'd like to be the FOTW in the conference room to know why that is.

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

Legislative branch needs a second tier to translate before law goes to admin to interpret. the admin agency's seem to believe the equal powers from president are delegated to them, and this is false. agencys are a second tier authority and should act as such

[@jahnkejustin429]

I disagree. Agencies can interpret (not make) law; the Supreme Court can tell them they are wrong. In Chevron, the Court abdicated its duty to tell the agencies when they are wrong. Simple fix.

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

@@jahnkejustin429 once we thought agencies were capable of simple terminology interpretation, but now we find we were wrong. 2.4 million kids lives destroyed by this assumption now annually, we cannot delegate such trust without a swifter solution

[@jahnkejustin429]

@@goddess_of_Kratos I am not sure what you are referencing, but agency rulemaking is a separate issue than interpretation, which is vested in the judiciary by Article III. Rulemaking is the delegation of legislative powers vested in the legislature, which violates Article I.

[@julieoliver8170]

Operating administratively based on the doctrine of mortmain and if they defer it back to the supreme Court which is operating under the Constitution of the United States which is separate and a corporate Constitution George Washington created the United States in the Treaty of France Andy Confederate Union was an adoption into that corporate Constitution. Which was an alienation which constituted a transfer of protection of the Articles of Confederation... The entire scheme is

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

woop woop bye bye cps