By Jeffrey B. Teichert
In 2024, the United States Supreme Court reshaped federal administrative law with its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The Court overturned the long-standing doctrine known as Chevron deference. For nearly four decades, Chevron gave federal agencies significant authority to interpret ambiguous statutes.
The Loper Bright decision changed that framework. Courts must now exercise their own judgment when interpreting federal law.
What Was Chevron Deference?
The Supreme Court established Chevron deference in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC in 1984.
Chevron created a two-step test for courts reviewing agency interpretations of federal statutes.
First, courts asked whether Congress had clearly addressed the issue. If Congress had spoken clearly, courts followed the statute.
If the statute was silent or ambiguous, however, courts asked whether the agency had adopted a permissible interpretation. This approach gave federal agencies substantial freedom to fill statutory gaps.
Over time, critics questioned whether Chevron gave executive agencies too much authority over the meaning of federal law.
What Changed With Loper Bright?
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron.
Instead of deferring to an agency simply because a statute is ambiguous, courts must independently determine the meaning of federal statutes.
At the same time, courts may still consider an agency’s interpretation as persuasive. However, ambiguity alone no longer requires judicial deference.
The majority relied heavily on the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA directs courts to decide relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions. Therefore, the decision places greater responsibility on judges to interpret the law independently.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence
In his article, Jeffrey B. Teichert examines Loper Bright through the broader principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, and due process.
Chevron allowed executive agencies to influence the interpretation of laws that those same agencies enforced. Because of this, critics argued that the doctrine blurred the constitutional roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this concern in his concurrence. He argued that Chevron reduced judicial authority while increasing the power of administrative agencies.
In addition, the article examines Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concerns about giving agencies too much influence in disputes involving the government and private citizens.
What Does Loper Bright Mean for Utah?
The decision may have less impact on Utah administrative law than many might expect.
Utah courts had already moved away from a Chevron-like approach when interpreting Utah statutes.
For example, in Hughes General Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Commission, the Utah Supreme Court rejected Chevron-style deference. The court emphasized that judges should interpret statutory language independently.
Utah courts continued to apply Chevron when interpreting federal law. After Loper Bright, however, they no longer need to defer to federal agencies simply because a federal statute contains ambiguity.
As a result, Teichert concludes that Loper Bright is unlikely to significantly disrupt Utah’s existing administrative-law precedent.
Questions for the Future
Overruling Chevron may only represent the beginning of a broader shift in administrative law.
Looking ahead, the article raises several important questions for courts and attorneys.
Will courts place stronger constitutional limits on executive authority?
Will citizens challenging administrative decisions receive review from more neutral decision-makers?
In addition, will courts give agency experts less preferential treatment?
And will individuals receive greater procedural protections before government agencies affect their property, businesses, or livelihoods?
Ultimately, these questions may shape the next phase of administrative law in the United States.
Originally published in the Utah Bar Journal, Volume 38, No. 2, March/April 2025.