A world without Chevron deference empowers courts to ignore agencies’ interpretations of their own statutory authority, bringing new vulnerability to emissions regulations, FMCSA rulemaking, and more.
Jeremy Wolfe
The Supreme Court in June overruled Chevron deference, a major legal doctrine that articulated federal agencies’ ability to interpret the law.
This raises the question of whether agency policies, like some emissions regulations, will still be supported by the judicial system. But is this a big deal for the trucking industry?
“Some have argued it’s not a big deal because courts have been working to interpret statutes to find there is no ambiguity in the first instance (in which case, Chevron did not apply),” Prasad Sharma, partner at Scopelitis and general counsel for the Truckload Carriers Association, told FleetOwner. “They point to the fact that the Supreme Court has not relied on Chevron to decide a case of late.
“However, it’s a longstanding precedent that was largely followed by the lower courts, so it is a big deal. It will shift power from agencies to the judiciary and heighten the importance of Congress legislating with clarity to address issues that arise in the modern world.”
The end of Chevron deference represents a significant shift in interpretive power. With it comes a new possibility for courts to block major agency rulemakings from the EPA, FMCSA, and others.
Chevron deference shot down
In June, the Supreme Court overruled the 1984 Chevron ruling in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
What was Chevron deference?
Chevron deference is a legal doctrine suggesting that, when a law concerning a federal agency is ambiguous, federal courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law.
According to Cornell Law School, the doctrine came from the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., where the Supreme Court articulated its opinion on deferring to agencies for interpretations. This deference was appropriate under two conditions: when Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue in question, and when the agency charged with executing the law held a reasonable interpretation.
“Chevron was a case that led to a judicial doctrine that when an agency is promulgating a substantive rule (one with legal effect) under the Administrative Procedures Act and there is some ambiguity in the authorizing statute enacted by Congress, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute so long as it is reasonable,” Prasad Sharma, partner at Scopelitis and general counsel for the Truckload Carriers Association, told FleetOwner. “This meant that a court should accept the agency’s interpretation even if there were other possible reasonable alternative interpretations.”
Chevron deference was a major part of administrative law for the last 40 years. It lent significant support to agencies’ rulemakings, such as EPA’s emissions regulations, for decades.
“The Supreme Court overturned the Chevron precedent, indicating it was inconsistent with the separation of powers under the Constitution, which assigns interpretation of the law to the judiciary,” Sharma said.
The decision shifts the power dynamic between the judiciary and federal agencies. Courts are no longer required to follow an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a relevant law.
“Going forward, courts are to do the work of interpreting statutes enacted by Congress using the tools available to courts,” Sharma said. “Courts may still consider the views of an agency and give it weight based on how long the agency has consistently held the view, the thoroughness of the agency’s consideration, and the validity of its reasoning. However, the courts no longer have to defer to the agency’s interpretation.”
This reduces agencies’ influence in defending against legal challenges.
“To the extent that an agency is filling gaps left unaddressed in a statute or interpreting an ambiguity, the agency will not enjoy deference but will, like other litigants, have to use its power to persuade,” Sharma said. “Because Congress is often unable to legislate with clarity on the wide range of potential questions that arise when Congress addresses an issue, agencies will have less latitude to carry out their views/preferences. On the other hand, some would argue that agencies were, under Chevron, exercising authority they never really should have had.”
What does this mean for trucking?
Judges received a newfound freedom to strike down major agency rulemakings. For trucking, relevant agency rules now have a new vulnerability in the court system.
“The reversal of Chevron is relevant to all agency rulemaking subject to the APA,” Sharma said. “For commercial transportation, that means substantive rules out of FMCSA, NHTSA, EPA, FHWA, among other agencies.”
This could include EPA emissions regulations, carriers’ Compliance, Safety, and Accountability scores, and more.
“It could be any number of statutes that have left gaps or ambiguities (arguably, nearly every statute),” Sharma said. “One area getting interest is the transition to zero-emission vehicles in California under the Clean Air Act and EPA’s construction of its waiver authority.”
EPA-granted waivers allow the California Air Resources Board to set its own emissions regulations. The Clean Air Act permits the EPA to grant California waivers to set its own emissions standards. This helped CARB develop zero-emissions vehicle mandates under its Advanced Clean Trucks regulation.
Legal challenges currently surround EPA’s authority to grant the waiver for ACT, in part because the agency cannot set its own EV mandate, as Julia Stein writes in Legal Planet. According to Stein, a world without Chevron deference means that reviewing courts have greater power to ignore EPA’s own interpretation of its waiver-granting authority—an existential threat to the California ZEV mandate.
“Moreover, in combination with the Court’s revival of the major questions doctrine, rulemaking with impacts on broad swaths of the economy will be under heightened scrutiny,” Sharma told FleetOwner.
The major questions doctrine became most relevant after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. According to this doctrine, courts should hesitate to assume agencies have the independent authority to make actions of economic or political significance without explicit Congressional approval.
The major questions doctrine and judges’ newly expanded authority to interpret law illustrate a shift in power away from federal agencies. Agency rulemaking has new vulnerabilities in the judicial system. Agencies hoping to make grand changes to the trucking industry could face new, critical setbacks in court.
