Decline of Chevron deference and rise of Major Questions Doctrine
1. Background: What is Chevron Deference?
Originates from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Holds that courts should defer to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes by federal agencies charged with implementing those statutes.
The two-step Chevron test:
Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue? If yes, the court must give effect to Congress’s intent.
If the statute is ambiguous, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable? If yes, courts defer.
This principle gave agencies significant interpretive authority.
2. Emergence of the Major Questions Doctrine
The Major Questions Doctrine limits Chevron deference in cases involving issues of vast economic or political significance.
When an agency claims authority over major policy questions, courts require clear congressional authorization.
This doctrine essentially says: for “major” issues, courts won’t defer to agency interpretations unless Congress has explicitly spoken.
3. Why the Decline of Chevron?
Critics argue Chevron allows agencies to expand their power without clear legislative mandate.
Courts have become more skeptical of broad agency claims.
The Major Questions Doctrine reflects a desire for judicial oversight and separation of powers.
The Supreme Court has limited Chevron’s scope in recent years.
Key Cases Demonstrating the Shift
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Importance: The foundational case establishing Chevron deference.
The EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act’s ambiguous provisions regarding emissions standards.
Court ruled agencies can interpret ambiguous statutes if reasonable.
Set the baseline for deference to administrative agencies.
2. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)
Issue: Whether FDA could regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Holding: The Court refused to defer to the FDA’s broad interpretation because tobacco regulation was a major policy decision Congress had not clearly authorized.
Significance:
Early application of the Major Questions Doctrine.
The Court looked for clear congressional authorization and found none.
Refused Chevron deference due to the economic and political significance of tobacco regulation.
3. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
Issue: EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
Holding: The Court limited EPA’s authority because allowing such a broad interpretation would raise major questions about regulating vast sectors of the economy without clear congressional authorization.
Significance:
Reinforced that major regulatory actions need explicit congressional mandates.
Limited scope of Chevron deference when agencies assert expansive authority.
4. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Issue: Whether subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were available for insurance purchased on federal exchanges.
Holding: The Court ruled against Chevron deference because the question was of deep “economic and political significance”.
Significance:
The Court applied the Major Questions Doctrine to reject deference.
Held that courts must independently interpret statutes in such major cases.
Marked a significant moment in the rise of the doctrine.
5. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Issue: EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to impose broad emissions caps on power plants (Clean Power Plan).
Holding: The Court struck down the EPA’s plan, ruling that such sweeping regulatory authority required clear congressional authorization that was absent.
Significance:
The most explicit recent application of the Major Questions Doctrine.
The Court stated that agencies cannot claim broad authority on major questions based on ambiguous statutory text.
This case marks a sharp decline in Chevron deference for major policy questions.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Holding | Impact on Chevron / Major Questions Doctrine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevron v. NRDC | 1984 | Established Chevron deference | Foundation for agency deference |
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson | 2000 | No deference on tobacco regulation | Early Major Questions Doctrine use |
| Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA | 2014 | Limited EPA's authority | Major questions need clear mandate |
| King v. Burwell | 2015 | No deference on ACA subsidies | Expanded major questions scope |
| West Virginia v. EPA | 2022 | Struck down EPA Clean Power Plan | Cemented Major Questions Doctrine; limited Chevron |
Conclusion
The Chevron deference framework, once the cornerstone of administrative law, has been curtailed by the Supreme Court through the Major Questions Doctrine. Courts now exercise greater scrutiny on agency interpretations when the stakes involve significant economic or political consequences. The key cases above show the Court’s movement away from automatic deference towards demanding clear congressional authorization for major regulatory decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments