Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 to overrule the Chevron doctrine, which previously required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Administrative Procedure Act requires judges to use their own independent judgment to decide what a law means. The case began when fishing companies challenged a rule requiring them to pay for government-mandated monitors on their boats.

This decision makes it much easier for businesses and individuals to challenge federal regulations in court. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the government when a law is unclear, judges will now decide the meaning of the law themselves. This could affect everything from environmental protections to healthcare rules and financial regulations.

For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine allowed agencies to fill in the gaps of broadly written laws using their expertise. Critics argued this gave unelected bureaucrats too much power, while supporters said agencies understand technical issues better than judges. By ending Chevron, the Court has shifted significant power away from the executive branch and back to the judiciary.

The Court ruled 6-2 to overrule Chevron, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion joined by five other justices. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor dissented, while Justice Jackson did not participate in the Loper Bright decision.

“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.”

The Supreme Court ended the 40-year-old practice of deferring to federal agencies, giving judges the final word on interpreting unclear laws.

Lower courts will now begin hearing challenges to various federal rules without giving agencies the benefit of the doubt. While past rulings based on Chevron are not automatically overturned, they can now be challenged individually under the new standard. Agencies may also become more cautious about issuing new regulations that aren't explicitly authorized by Congress.

Fishing companies sued over a rule that forced them to pay $710 per day for government monitors. They argued that the federal government did not have the clear legal authority to make them pay for these programs.

The Court pointed to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which says courts must "decide all relevant questions of law." The majority argued that Chevron ignored this law by forcing judges to follow agency interpretations instead of their own.

No, the Court clarified that this decision does not automatically overturn past cases that were decided using the Chevron rule. However, those specific regulations can now be challenged in new lawsuits using the Court's updated standard.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor dissented, while Justice Jackson did not participate in this specific case.

This ruling shifts power away from the executive branch and gives it to the judicial branch. It also places more pressure on Congress to write laws with very specific instructions rather than leaving gaps for agencies to fill.