Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce
In brief
Chevron deference is no longer the law, and courts must independently interpret federal statutes when reviewing agency actions.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 28, 2024 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- This case challenged a federal regulation requiring herring fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors, but ultimately served as the vehicle for the Supreme Court to overrule the Chevron deference doctrine.
- Who it affects
- Federal agencies can no longer win a statutory dispute simply because their reading of an unclear law is reasonable.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires judges to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes rather than deferring to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.
The decision shifts more responsibility for interpreting federal statutes from executive agencies to federal judges.
Question presented
1. Should Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council be overruled? 2. Does statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. No. 22–451, 45 F. 4th 359 &. No. 22–1219, 62 F. 4th 621, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
From the opinions
“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority”
What's next
The lower courts must reconsider the fishermen's challenge under the new rule. Agencies and regulated parties will now litigate statutory-authority disputes without Chevron deference.
Why it matters
For example, a fishing company challenging a requirement to pay for at-sea monitors can ask a court to independently decide whether Congress authorized that requirement.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Relentless?
- The Court overruled Chevron and said judges must independently decide whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.
- Who won Relentless?
- The fishermen and other challengers won on the Chevron issue. The Court vacated the lower-court decisions and sent the cases back.
- Is Chevron deference still the law after Relentless?
- No. Courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of a law simply because the statute is ambiguous.
- What does Relentless mean for herring fishermen?
- They may continue challenging the monitor-payment regulation. Courts must independently decide whether Congress authorized the agency's action.
- What happens next in Relentless?
- Lower courts will reconsider the dispute using independent statutory interpretation rather than Chevron deference.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.