The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding whether it should reverse or modify the now famous (or infamous) 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. While that case and its numerous progenies over the last 20 years have been subject to many interpretive nuances, at bottom the decision instructed the courts to defer to federal agencies if the enabling statute at issue was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation was reasonable. 

The arguments before the Supreme Court largely focused on complicated questions of administrative law and constitutional separation of powers. The key issue is whether the courts have abdicated their appropriate role in overseeing agency discretion—exercised principally in rulemaking. Subject to much commentary over the years, especially recently, there have been growing concerns that Chevron overly empowered agencies to pursue their own agendas. Further, many believe Chevron enabled the agencies to abuse their authority and removed a meaningful judicial check on unelected agency officials.