About the Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court published its long-awaited decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 21-5166 and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 21-1886 — a pair of cases challenging the continued viability of the “Chevron deference” doctrine established by the Court nearly 40 years ago in its landmark decision, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Court expressly overruled Chevron, finding that judges — not federal agencies — should interpret federal laws. It is anticipated that state courts will reconsider their own doctrines and deferential standards of review.

One of the Court’s most-cited decisions, Chevron articulated the predominant precedent in administrative law that when Congress has assigned responsibility for administering a statute to a federal agency, and the statute has more than one reasonable interpretation, courts must defer to that agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Chevron Assessed at the State Level

Although state courts are not obligated to defer to state-level administrative agencies or adopt federal deference doctrines, Chevron has not been without influence. In Pennsylvania, for example, courts have described their own approach to agency deference as indistinguishable from Chevron. In New Jersey, courts have long accorded great deference above and beyond the confines of Chevron to an agency’s interpretation of statutes and regulations within its scope of authority.

Now, with Chevron overruled entirely, we expect many states will reconsider their own doctrines. Indeed, those states that still apply some form of deference within the Chevron framework—either expressly adopting or following Chevron, using nearly the exact same steps, or applying a standard as strict (or stricter) in practice — have been increasingly in the minority. Even prior to the Court’s decision in Loper, most states applied either a de novo standard of review or a lesser form of deference to state-level administrative agencies, and in recent years, a number of states have abolished existing standards of deference either by judicial decision or by statute or constitutional amendment.

Those states that still apply some form of deference within the Chevron and Auer framework—either expressly adopting or following Chevron and Auer, using nearly the exact same steps, or applying a standard as strict (or stricter) in practice—are now in the minority, and several states are poised to alter their existing standards. Most recently, the attorneys general of Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina and Wyoming—states that still maintain deferential standards of review—joined a coalition of other states as amici curiae in Loper, asking that the Supreme Court overrule—or at least clarify—the Chevron deference doctrine. With Chevron now officially overruled, we would expect these states to follow suit.

Additionally, the attorneys general of several states that still maintain deferential standards of review joined a coalition of other states as amici curiae in Loper, asking that the Supreme Court overrule—or at least clarify—the “Chevron deference” doctrine. With Chevron now officially overruled, we would expect these states to modify their current doctrines consistent with the Court’s decision.

Ultimately, this new decision will have far reaching implications on state courts and administrative agencies, and how they interpret and apply statutes and regulations within the scope of their authority. We will continue to monitor this and other related developments. For questions regarding how this will affect your business, please contact Michael A. Cedrone or the Stevens & Lee attorney with whom you regularly work.

Read More: How the Chevron Decision Limits NLRB Influence

Our affiliate blog, The Employment Law Center, examines how the National Labor Relations Board will find it more difficult to expand its reach, issue new remedies for violations of the National Labor Relations Act and will no longer be able to engage in sea shifting legal changes. For more information, please read: “How the Chevron Decision Limits NLRB Influence.”