Why the Supreme Court Overturned Chevron Deference in Loper Bright

Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

An observer on an Atlantic herring boat could cost the owner up to $710 a day, by the fisheries agency’s estimate. Four family fishing businesses challenged the rule that made boats pay for certified observers when the government did not provide one. They asked whether Congress had authorized that charge.

The fight over that observer payment raised a larger question: when a federal law is unclear, does an agency’s reading or a judge’s reading prevail? The government read Congress’s permission to put observers aboard boats as support for making boat owners pay.

On June 28, 2024, the Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Under Chevron, a judge could have to accept an agency’s reasonable reading of an unclear statute. The change reaches beyond fishing: an agency’s interpretation of an unclear law must persuade a court, rather than control the outcome by default.

A monitoring bill became a fight over legal authority

The National Marine Fisheries Service’s Atlantic herring program required an observer aboard selected vessels to collect information about the catch. When the agency did not assign a government-paid observer, a boat had to contract with a certified third-party monitor and pay for the service. For a vessel operator, the distinction between carrying an observer and paying one was anything but academic.

The agency estimated the monitor could cost as much as $710 each day and reduce annual returns to the owner by up to 20 percent. In their brief to the Supreme Court, the fishing businesses pointed to warnings of an impossible financial burden for small operations. The price made the statutory wording matter: a requirement to admit an observer and a requirement to finance that observer are not obviously the same power.

The dispute arose under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs fisheries in federal waters. The businesses argued that Congress authorized industry-funded monitoring elsewhere but not for their herring vessels.

The parties disputed whether the law authorized forcing the boats to pay. The courts faced a further question about how to decide between their readings.

Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc. and Seafreeze Fleet LLC brought the companion herring case. The Supreme Court vacated both lower-court judgments and sent the cases back because those courts had relied on Chevron. That disposition did not decide whether Congress actually authorized this particular payment rule.

A 2026 joint filing reported that the D.C. Circuit case had been held in abeyance. Two days later, the Relentless parties asked the First Circuit to pause their appeal while Commerce considered rescinding the challenged regulation. Those filings record steps in the two cases; neither is a final ruling on the payment authority.

What Chevron told a judge to do

The rule began with the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a case about whether pollution equipment could be treated as one source under the Clean Air Act. At the first step, judges asked whether Congress had directly answered the precise question. If Congress had not, judges asked whether the agency’s interpretation was permissible.

A clear statute controlled; an unclear one could leave room for the agency’s reasonable choice. The Loper Bright majority described the former rule as requiring deference even when a judge read the statute differently. A court was not simply rubber-stamping an agency, but it could uphold a reading it did not consider the best one.

Federal agencies generally invite written public comment on proposed substantive rules before finalizing them, subject to exceptions. Chevron concerned a court’s later review of statutory meaning, not the entire process by which agencies develop regulations. Ending deference did not, by itself, abolish notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Why the majority ended deference

Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act tells a reviewing court to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority read that instruction to require independent judicial judgment about a statute’s meaning. An ambiguous law still needs interpretation; the majority said that is a judge’s job in a case before the court.

The majority rejected the assumption that every statutory ambiguity delegates interpretation to an agency. Lawmakers may leave a term unclear by accident, not because they secretly chose the executive branch to give it a final meaning. The Court also held that respect for precedent did not require keeping Chevron because of weaknesses in its reasoning and workability.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that Chevron shifted judicial interpretive power toward executive agencies. Its members’ practical complaint was that regulatory duties could turn on changing agency interpretations rather than an obligation apparent from the statute. The majority’s holding adopted a judicial-duty theory, not the Chamber’s every claim about compliance costs.

The majority did not tell judges to ignore agencies: a technical or experienced agency’s reading can still persuade a court. Persuasion differs from command. The agency may help explain a difficult statute, but its view does not win merely because the wording is uncertain.

The dissent’s answer

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent argued that Congress cannot write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. An agency also reports to a president accountable to voters while a judge has no comparable mandate to choose policy. On that view, a gap in a regulatory law may be a choice Congress expected the agency to make, not a mistake for judges to cure.

Kagan used Medicare geography as an example: a payment area could span several states or a single census tract. The administering agency could study reimbursement effects and nationwide workability before drawing the line. A legal dictionary will not tell a hospital which boundary produces workable payments.

The Environmental Defense Fund’s brief offered a similar problem under the Clean Air Act: a rise in emissions depends partly on which time period is used for comparison. The choice can affect pollution controls; it is not always settled by reading the word ‘increase’ in isolation. Small-business groups supporting the government warned that losing Chevron could make rules less predictable across courts.

Kagan noted that Congress, agencies, judges, businesses and the public had operated under Chevron for decades. The small-business amici feared that different courts could change the regulatory landscape unexpectedly. Their concern was not that every old rule would vanish on decision day. It was the uncertainty of what courts might do when later challenges arrived.

Who decides now, and what agencies can still do

When Congress genuinely delegates choices, the Loper Bright majority said courts must recognize the delegation and its boundaries. An agency’s policy choices within those boundaries still face arbitrary-and-capricious review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In plain terms, a court checks whether the agency stayed within its lawful power and gave a reasoned explanation for the choice. The judge decides what the statute permits; the agency may still choose among lawful policy options.

Courts may weigh the agency’s expertise and power to persuade when interpreting a difficult statute. That is not the old Chevron rule in a new name: a persuasive explanation can be accepted, but ambiguity alone no longer obliges deference. The result in a particular case depends on the words Congress used and the record the agency built.

Congress remains able to draft more specific statutes or expressly delegate discretion to agencies. If lawmakers want an agency to make a technical choice, they can say so and specify its limits. The Court changed the default rule for judges; Congress still writes the law judges must apply.

What did not disappear overnight

The Court expressly said prior decisions holding specific agency actions lawful remain protected by ordinary precedent rules. Overruling the method of deference is not the same as striking every regulation once reviewed under that method. A rule remains in force unless it expires, is changed by the responsible authority, or is set aside in a valid challenge.

In 2024, the Fifth Circuit replaced its earlier Restaurant Law Center opinion after granting rehearing. The dispute concerned a tip credit, which lets certain employers count tips toward a worker’s minimum wage under federal law. That made the statutory question concrete for restaurants and tipped employees.

In its substituted opinion, the appeals court held the Labor Department tip-credit rule unlawful. It found the rule contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s text and arbitrary and capricious. The court evaluated one rule against one law, not all federal regulations at once.

In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, the Supreme Court separately held that the general six-year clock for an Administrative Procedure Act challenge starts when a plaintiff is injured by final agency action. That can leave an older rule open to a new plaintiff’s challenge, but the plaintiff still needs a real injury and a legal argument. The combination makes some established rules newly contestable without deciding in advance whether a challenge will succeed.

Where a person can act, and what may change

Before a substantive rule is finalized, federal law generally gives interested people an opportunity to submit written views. To comment, find the proposal on FederalRegister.gov and use its Submit a formal comment link or search the docket on Regulations.gov. A comment can inform the agency’s decision; it is not a court challenge.

A lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires injury from final agency action. People considering litigation need to identify the particular rule, the harm, the court with jurisdiction, and any applicable deadline; the Loper Bright ruling alone does not supply a claim. For a reader who simply wants a rule changed, the public-comment channel is available earlier in the rulemaking process.

The introduced EXPERTS Act of 2025 would amend Section 706 so a reviewing court defers to a reasonable agency reading of an ambiguous statute after required procedures. It would also generally start the six-year clock for a court challenge when an agency action becomes final.

That proposed deadline differs from the current injury-based clock in Corner Post. The bill would change both how courts read unclear statutes and who still has time to challenge older rules.

The bill tracker lists referral to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in 2025, as the last recorded action. The proposal has not changed the law; courts continue to use Loper Bright’s independent-judgment rule unless Congress acts.

NOAA Fisheries still lists the herring industry-funded monitoring program as suspended pending federal funding. The parties’ 2026 filing says Commerce began considering rescission of the challenged regulations.

A regulatory decision could therefore settle the boats’ immediate dispute without a court deciding the old payment rule’s meaning. The broader holding remains: when statutory authority is disputed in court, the agency’s reading must persuade the judge rather than control by default.