Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., legal case, decided on June 25, 1984, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established a longstanding judicial precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, also called Chevron deference. In a 7–0 ruling (three justices recused themselves), the Court created a two-part test to be used by judges in cases involving challenges to a federal agency’s application of an ambiguous or unclear provision of a statute under which it issues or enforces business regulations, such as those designed to protect the environment, public health, and workplace or consumer safety. In a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that judges must first determine whether the question at the center of the case—the validity of the agency’s application of the ambiguous provision—has been explicitly addressed by Congress in the relevant statute or its history. If Congress has not “directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” then the judge must uphold the agency’s application, provided that it is based on a “permissible construction,” or reasonable interpretation, of the statute’s ambiguous provision.
In the particular case before the Court, the majority applied the two-part test to the contention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the term stationary source, as used in amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1972, referred to entire industrial plants producing air pollution rather than pollution-producing units within such plants. Based on that interpretation, the EPA had endorsed state air-pollution permit programs that allowed the installation or modification of pollution-producing units provided that the pollution emitted by the plant as a whole did not increase. The EPA’s interpretation was challenged by the National Resources Defense Council in a petition filed in 1981 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the EPA’s reading as “inappropriate” to the overall purpose of state permit programs to improve, rather than merely maintain, air quality. Having agreed in 1983 to review the appeals court’s decision, the Supreme Court found that Congress lacked a “specific intention” regarding the proper application of stationary source and declared that the EPA’s interpretation of the term amounted to “a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make.”
During subsequent decades, Chevron U.S.A. became one of the most cited cases in modern U.S. judicial history. The decision has been relied upon in dozens of Supreme Court rulings and in thousands of decisions by lower courts. The Chevron doctrine was initially supported by a broad range of judges and legal scholars who believed that the effective implementation of regulatory legislation, as well as the consistent operation of regulatory agencies, required appropriate input from scientific and other technical experts. However, some critics of the doctrine argued that it had enabled uncontrolled regulation by government agencies and their unelected leaders, thus empowering an undemocratic “administrative state.” In a series of cases argued before the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., some conservative justices wrote or joined opinions in which they questioned the validity of the Chevron doctrine. In January 2024 the Court heard oral arguments in a pair of cases—Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce—in which the plaintiffs urged the justices to overturn Chevron U.S.A. altogether or at least to drastically limit the application of the Chevron doctrine, arguing in part that the 1984 decision had unconstitutionally deprived judges of the power to interpret laws.
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron U.S.A. and thereby eliminated the Chevron deference rule. In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the Court held that the requirement that courts defer to the statutory interpretations of administrative agencies is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, which stipulates the ways in which federal agencies may make and enforce regulations. “In addition to prescribing procedures for agency action,” the Court noted, “the APA delineates the basic contours of judicial review of such action.” Section 706 of the APA, cited by the Court, states that “the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” Its rejection of Chevron deference notwithstanding, the Court declared that “we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful…are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”