ELR Citation: 54 ELR 20097
No(s). 22-451 and 22-1219 (U.S. Jun 28, 2024)

The U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, held the APA requires courts to exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority and that courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous, overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in two lawsuits concerning application of the Chevron framework to a rule promulgated by NMFS pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In both suits, commercial fishing companies challenged the rule, arguing the MSA did not authorize the agency to mandate that they pay for observers required by a fishery management plan. Two district courts granted summary judgment for NMFS, deferring to the agency's interpretation under Chevron. Two appellate courts affirmed, deferring to the agency's interpretation as a "reasonable" construction of the MSA in one of the suits and as not "exceed[ing] the bounds of the permissible" in the other. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both, limiting the question to whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified. The Court found the deference Chevron required of courts reviewing agency action could not be squared with the APA, which directs courts to "decide legal questions by applying their own judgment." According to the majority, "Chevron defies the command of the APA that 'the reviewing court'—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to 'decide all relevant questions of law' and 'interpret...statutory provisions,'" and when it comes to statutory ambiguities, even those involving technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency's area of expertise, "Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions." It overruled Chevron, vacated the appellate judgments in both suits, and remanded for further proceedings. Roberts, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J., filed concurring opinions. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined, and in which Jackson, J., joined as it applies to No. 22-1219. Jackson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case in No. 22-451.