In a decision that may be felt in schools and colleges across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overruled a major precedent on when courts should defer to federal agencies鈥� interpretations of the laws that apply to them.
The 6-3 decision in could have near-term implications on matters such as the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 recent final regulation interpreting Title IX to protect transgender students. The rule, scheduled to take effect Aug. 1, has been challenged in multiple lawsuits and has already been blocked from taking effect in 10 states.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion that overrules a 1984 decision, , that requires courts to give deference to federal agencies鈥� reasonable interpretations of statutes when those laws are 鈥渟ilent or ambiguous.鈥�
鈥�Chevron is overruled,鈥� Roberts said. 鈥淐ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.鈥�
The Chevron decision was 鈥渕isguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,鈥� the chief justice said, adding that the framers of the U.S. Constitution 鈥渁nticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment.鈥�
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the chief justice鈥檚 opinion, with Thomas and Gorsuch filing concurrences.
Justice Elena Kagan was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent, part of which she read from the bench.
The majority 鈥済ives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values,鈥� Kagan said. 鈥淚t puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject鈥攂ecause there are always gaps and ambiguities in regulatory statutes, and often of great import.鈥�
Abner S. Greene, a law professor at Fordham University and an expert on administrative law, said in an interview that the change in courts鈥� approach to regulatory matters is likely to be profound.
鈥淭he Roberts opinion seems to think courts have all the right answers,鈥� he said.
Federal agencies such as the Education Department will have specific authority when Congress spells it out clearly in the laws it passes, but many statutes have vague and ambiguous provisions, and courts will now have more power to essentially make policy decisions, Greene said.
A case on fishing rules has major implications
The case before the court involved a challenge to a federal regulation requiring the Atlantic herring fishing industry to pay for federal observers who are authorized by statute and join vessels to prevent overfishing. But the justices made clear they were taking up the case to decide whether to overrule Chevron.
The case attracted wide attention from business interests, which wanted to see Chevron deference go. Amid dozens of briefs filed in the case, just one focused some attention on the Department of Education and the then-pending Title IX regulation.
A that was written and filed last year by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal organization that has fought against transgender rights in several arenas, argues that the department鈥檚 then-pending Title IX rule would interpret 鈥渟ex鈥� under the statute to mean 鈥済ender identity,鈥� with implications for school sports and restrooms.
鈥淲hen the department鈥檚 final rule issues, the agency will likely inevitably [invoke] Chevron deference,鈥� says the brief. 鈥淣o court should be forced by Chevron to defer to the department鈥檚 claim that Title IX means the opposite of what it says. The statute deals with discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity, and Title IX鈥檚 direct reference to a male-female binary excludes any gender identity interpretation.鈥�
(The department鈥檚 final rule actually did not invoke Chevron, but that may be because the doctrine has nothing to do with the Title IX regulations but would be something the federal government would cite in defending the rule.)
In a statement reacting to the Loper Bright decision, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake said the court 鈥渉as rightly held that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats can鈥檛 weaponize federal laws to violate Americans鈥� most fundamental rights.鈥�
There is a practical matter worth noting with regard to the work Chevron has been doing on Education Department regulations.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar submitted to the court a list of cases, going back decades, in which the Supreme Court had invoked Chevron deference. There was only one case on the list involving an Education Department rule鈥攁 2007 case, , which involved a regulation about the distribution of federal impact aid.
Roberts, in his majority opinion, noted that the Supreme Court has not deferred to an agency interpretation under Chevron since 2016.
Only brief discussions of Chevron in recent challenges to Title IX rule
The recent lawsuits challenging the department鈥檚 final Title IX rule, some of which involve states and other plaintiffs represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, have been filed in federal district courts where they were likely to end up before conservative judges.
In the two decisions so far that have blocked the rule in at least some states, the judges made quick work of Chevron deference.
In involving a challenge by Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves of Lexington, Ky., acknowledged that 鈥�Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency鈥檚 construction of the statute, even if the agency鈥檚 reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation.鈥�
鈥淏ut an agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that undoes the unambiguous language of the statute,鈥� Reeves said, which is what he concluded the Education Department was doing with its expansive view that Title IX鈥檚 protection against sex discrimination covered transgender students.
Citing the then-pending Supreme Court case, Reeves said he 鈥渞ecognizes that Chevron鈥檚 future is uncertain. However, this uncertainty does not impact the court鈥檚 analysis because it does not defer to the department鈥檚 interpretation of Title IX under Chevron.鈥�
