Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
2024 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a landmark decision[1] of the United States Supreme Court in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies. Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces.[2][3]
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce | |
---|---|
Argued January 17, 2024 Decided June 28, 2024 | |
Full case name | Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. Relentless, Inc. et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al. |
Docket nos. | 22-451 22-1219 |
Citations | 603 U.S. ___ (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
Case history | |
Prior | Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, 45 F.4th 359 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Ross, 544 F.Supp.3d 82 (D.D.C. 2021). |
Subsequent | Remanded to D.C. Circuit. |
Questions presented | |
Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. | |
Holding | |
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concurrence | Gorsuch |
Dissent | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor; Jackson (as it applies to Relentless) |
Jackson (in Loper Bright)[lower-alpha 1] took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
Administrative Procedure Act | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) |
In lieu of Chevron, the decision assigns the determination of congressional ambiguity to the judicial branch, with executive agency expertise still to be considered under the weaker Skidmore deference. Existing rules and case law already decided under the Chevron deference were to remain in place from this decision.
Both cases originated from fishing companies challenging a rule established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fishing companies to pay for the cost of federal monitors that may be assigned to their boats, under authorization of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The company claimed that the Act did not allow NMFS to pass the monitors' costs to the fishing companies, challenging the Chevron deference that was held in the NMFS' favor during lower court hearings.