Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Legal Issues
Overview
Overview
For 40 years after Chevron v. NRDC, courts deferred to federal agencies on ambiguous statutory questions, on the theory that EPA scientists know more about clean air standards than judges do. The vehicle for ending that rule was commercial fishermen objecting to an NMFS rule requiring them to pay the cost of federal monitors on their boats. The Supreme Court overruled Chevron 6-3: courts, not agencies, are the final word on what ambiguous statutes mean. Bryan's Chevron doctrine entry covers the 40-year rule; this case ended it.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overruled Chevron 6-3, holding that courts, not agencies, have final authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. The decision ended a 40-year doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretations. The case stemmed from commercial fishermen challenging an NMFS rule requiring them to fund federal monitors aboard their vessels.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support