WILL CHEVRON FINALLY RUN OUT OF GAS?
The Chevron Doctrine is a rule adopted by the Supreme Court in 1984. It says that when the language of a statute is ambiguous, a court must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation and may not substitute its own judgment. That is why it is also known as Chevron Deference.
Chevron has come under mounting attack in recent years as agencies have learned to game the system and to leverage any scintilla of ambiguity into a wholesale assertion of authority.
The Supreme Court has begun saying "enough" and has developed some caveats to check this game. For example, the newly articulated "major questions doctrine" is essentially the anti-Chevron: if an issue is big enough, then ambiguity dictates that the agency not receive deference.
But the Court has been ambivalent, sometimes applying the doctrine, sometimes finding that the relevant law is not ambiguous, and sometimes not mentioning it. (See here, pp. 24-26.)
Now the Supreme Court has agreed to address directly the issue of whether Chevron should be overruled – much like Roe v Wade. Here’s the story.













