Supreme Court Eyes World War II Era Doctrine for Agency Rules
The future of the Chevron doctrine appears more precarious than ever after Supreme Court arguments, but questions remain about what might replace the bedrock administrative law principle.
The court, controlled by conservative justices, signaled during arguments Jan. 17 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce that if Chevron goes, that they want a doctrine known as Skidmore to govern in the future, even as consensus alluded them about what that could mean.
If Skidmore is going to occupy a more prominent role going forward, I d like to know exactly what your understanding of that principle is, Chief Justice John Roberts told advocate Paul Clement, who was challenging Chevron.
While 1984 s ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council often requires judges to defer to agencies when they offer a reasonable interpretation of a statute, 1944 s Skidmore v. Swift generally says an agency s interpretation of a statute is only entitled to deference from courts if it is persuasive.
Several conservative justices appear primed to ditch or at least severely limit Chevron in the Relentless case, and the potential impact of Skidmore after that would depend in large part on how much explicit guidance they give to lower courts, said the Cato Institute s Thomas Berry.
I’ve always thought Chevron was stupid. FWIW. It would be a small miracle if we managed to get rid of it.