The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part I

Subscribe and Listen

On January 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases in which the question presented is whether the Court should overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. That decision produced what became known as the "Chevron judicial deference framework" - the two-step analysis that courts typically invoke when reviewing a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute. This two-part episode repurposes our webinar held in February 2024 and brings together as our guests three renowned administrative law professors, Kent Barnett, Jack Beermann, and Craig Green, and a leading Supreme Court practitioner, Carter Phillips, all of whom are experts on Chevron. In Part I, we first review the Chevron decision and judicial deference framework and the background of the two cases now before the Supreme Court. We then look at the history of judicial review of agency action culminating with the current challenge to Chevron deference, including the origins of judicial deference to agency action, the political shift away from judicial deference, and key post-Chevron decisions. We conclude with a discussion of the principal arguments made to the Supreme Court for upholding Chevron and for overruling Chevron.

Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion.

View the recording transcript here. 

Copyright © 2024 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.