The Chevron doctrine was founded in the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision stated that if federal legislation is ambiguous or leaves an administrative gap, the courts must defer to a regulatory agency’s interpretation if that interpretation is reasonable. In the majority decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondi, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that concluded that this type of judicial deference to a regulatory agency is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires the reviewing court to determine the meaning of the law. While the Court did overturn Chevron deference, it left in place cases like Skidmore v. Swift, which say that an agency interpretation may be due some amount of respect; however, it is unclear what agency actions will garner respect from courts during review.
Learning Objectives:
– The potential implications of Loper Bright overturning Chevron deference for the food industry
– The response from industry and/or consumer groups since Loper Bright was decided
– Other court decisions that have affected and/or will affect Chevron deference
– How we may expect this to affect agency rulemaking going forward
