Evolution of Chevron deference in Supreme Court decisions
Chevron Deference: Overview
Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that directs courts to defer to a federal administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers. It originated in the 1984 landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The doctrine aims to balance agency expertise and congressional delegation with judicial oversight.
Key Principles of Chevron Deference
Chevron established a two-step framework:
Step One: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue? If yes, follow Congressional intent.
Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, is the agency’s interpretation “reasonable”? If yes, defer to the agency.
Important Cases in the Evolution of Chevron Deference
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts:
EPA interpreted a provision of the Clean Air Act regarding "stationary sources" of pollution.
Held:
The Court established the Chevron two-step test, deferring to EPA’s reasonable interpretation.
Explanation:
Recognized agencies’ expertise and policy-making role.
Encouraged judicial restraint in second-guessing agencies.
Laid the foundation for modern administrative law.
2. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Facts:
The case involved tariff classifications and whether Customs’ rulings were entitled to Chevron deference.
Held:
The Court held that Chevron deference applies only when Congress has delegated authority to the agency to make rules carrying the force of law.
Explanation:
Distinguished between formal rulemaking/adjudication and informal guidance.
Introduced the concept of Skidmore deference for less formal agency interpretations.
Narrowed Chevron’s application to situations with clear congressional delegation.
3. National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Facts:
FCC changed its interpretation regarding regulation of cable internet providers.
Held:
The Court upheld Chevron deference to the FCC’s new interpretation, even if it conflicted with a previous judicial interpretation.
Explanation:
Confirmed agencies can change interpretations if reasonable.
Courts must defer to agencies under Chevron even if courts previously ruled differently.
Reinforces agency flexibility in interpreting statutes over time.
4. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Facts:
The Court examined whether tax credits under the Affordable Care Act applied to federally-run health insurance exchanges.
Held:
The Court declined to apply Chevron deference, interpreting the statute itself.
Explanation:
Marked an important limit to Chevron.
The Court stated it would not defer on questions of “deep economic and political significance”.
Emphasized judicial responsibility to interpret laws in such contexts.
5. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)
Facts:
EPA’s interpretation of “appropriate and necessary” for regulating power plants was challenged.
Held:
The Court rejected the EPA’s interpretation, declining Chevron deference because the agency did not consider costs properly.
Explanation:
Signaled the Court’s willingness to scrutinize agency interpretations carefully.
Suggested Chevron does not mean agencies have carte blanche.
Highlighted the limits of deference when agencies ignore important factors.
6. Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)
Facts:
The Court addressed whether courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations (Auer deference).
Held:
The Court upheld Auer deference but significantly narrowed its scope.
Explanation:
Although not directly Chevron, the decision reflects growing judicial caution about agency deference.
Emphasizes courts must carefully assess if deference is appropriate.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Chevron v. NRDC | 1984 | Established two-step Chevron deference test |
| United States v. Mead Corp. | 2001 | Limited Chevron to formal agency actions with delegated power |
| National Cable & Telecommunications v. Brand X | 2005 | Agencies can change interpretations and still get Chevron |
| King v. Burwell | 2015 | No Chevron for “major questions” of economic/political significance |
| Michigan v. EPA | 2015 | Chevron deference denied when agency ignores critical factors |
| Kisor v. Wilkie | 2019 | Narrowed Auer deference; caution on agency interpretative power |
Conclusion
Chevron deference has evolved from a broad doctrine encouraging judicial deference to administrative agencies, to a more nuanced, cautious approach where courts carefully evaluate the nature of agency authority, the importance of the question, and the reasonableness of interpretations. Recent cases have signaled a trend of greater judicial scrutiny and limits on deference, especially in politically or economically significant issues.
RELATED Blog
0 comments