A World Without Chevron? U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Cases that Could Overturn 40-Year-Old Doctrine of Statutory Interpretation
On January 18, 2024, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the Chevron doctrine of statutory interpretation, Loper Bright Enterprises, et al., v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce (Loper-Bright) and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (Relentless). Under the Chevron doctrine, courts are supposed to grant deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Chevron Deference
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. established a two-step framework for courts to apply when reviewing an agency's construction of a statute, commonly known as "Chevron Deference." Since its decision nearly 40 years ago, Chevron Deference has been applied in over 70 Supreme Court cases.
The doctrine requires courts to do the following:
1) Question "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter."
2) If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, question "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
Case Backgrounds
In Loper-Bright, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, relying on the principles set forth in Chevron, upheld a final rule of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) that required fishing companies to pay for government monitoring of their catch.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals came to a similar conclusion in Relentless, which closely mirrored Loper-Bright, challenging the same NOAA rule. Petitioners in both cases requested that the Supreme Court determine whether the court should overrule Chevron entirely or, in the alternative, narrow the Chevron framework to clarify that statutory silence pertaining to certain agency powers does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Arguments for Overturning Chevron
In both oral arguments, petitioners focused on several key arguments for overturning Chevron.
Petitioners argued that Chevron should be overturned for the following reasons:
1) Chevron violates section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because section 706 mandates de novo review;
2) Chevron violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution by undermining the duty of judges to interpret federal statutes using independent judgment; and
3) the Chevron framework is unworkable because it "facilitates agency flip-flopping."
In response to Loper-Bright's Article III argument, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the Department of Commerce, said that Chevron does not violate Article III of the Constitution because the framework recognizes Congress's Article I authority to delegate filling statutory gaps to federal agencies and aligns with their Article II authority to fill in those statutory gaps. Under Article III, judges must give effect to the acts of Congress.
General Prelogar also addressed Chevron's failure to mention Section 706. Prelogar argued that this section was never understood to prescribe de novo review for questions of statutory interpretation and, therefore, was not at odds with the framework of review prescribed by Chevron.
In both the Relentless and Loper-Bright oral arguments, the Justices questioned the petitioners' consideration of stare decisis principles. In response to Justice Sotomayor's focus on the significant Chevron precedent of 77 cases, Roman Martinez, attorney for Relentless, argued that the "bottom-line holdings in those cases…would get stare decisis" preventing "convulsive change of the law."
Justice Sotomayor was not convinced by this argument, responding, "I don't understand how that happens…[o]nce you have a new approach, I'm not sure." Justice Kagan in Loper-Bright highlighted this point when she challenged petitioners' argument, stating, "You're saying blow up [the Chevron doctrine], blow up [stare decisis], and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts."
Justice Alito questioned whether Paul Clement, attorney for Loper-Bright, believed that the rationale for the Chevron framework, "taking judges out of the business of making […] policy decisions," was incorrect. Mr. Clement stated that while he believed the Justices were "partially right" in Chevron, since then, he said, statutory interpretation has "come a long way" and cited case law from the past decade in which Justices were able to determine the purpose of a statute without deferring to the respective agencies.
Several of the Justices also homed in on the petitioners' position that the Chevron framework created ambiguity in the law. Justice Kavanaugh posed the question to General Prelogar: "[h]ow would you define ambiguity or how would you, if you were a judge, say, yes, this is ambiguous or no, that's not ambiguous?" General Prelogar responded that pursuant to the Court's holding in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), courts would find a statute ambiguous "when the Court has exhausted the tools of interpretation and hasn't found a single right answer."
Throughout the oral arguments, both the Justices and the parties recognized the importance of the outcome of these cases. General Prelogar observed that overturning Chevron would be a "shock to the legal system," although Justice Kavanaugh challenged this view, saying that, under Chevron, there are "shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in[,]" and that Chevron is "at war with reliance."
Significance of These Cases
The Court's decision could trigger the following crucial questions, amongst others:
1) If silence in a statute is no longer considered to be ambiguous, will there be an onslaught of litigation questioning agency interpretation of statutes?
2) If Chevron is completely overruled, how, if at all, will judicial appointments change?
3) How, if at all, will agencies alter their rule-making processes?
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Article III Standing
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- BNPL
- Business Records
- California
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CDC
- CFPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Claim-Splitting
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFPI
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Digital Financial Asset Law
- Disclosure
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Document Retention
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- ECOA
- Economic Impact Payment
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Lending
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Registration
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- Furnishers
- GDPR
- hacking
- Hardship Declaration
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- Hunstein
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Investigation
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Kentucky
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- LGBTQ
- Licensing
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Expenses
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loan Acceleration
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Legislation
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NMLS
- North Carolina
- North Carolina Consumer Finance Act
- North Dakota
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYCRA
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Origination
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- PPP
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Right of Action
- Private Student Loans
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Redlining
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- Rohit Chopra
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Separation of Powers
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Implications
- Tax Lien
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Utah
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA)
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act