The End of the Chevron Doctrine and the Reassertion of Judicial Primacy in Reviewing Federal Regulatory Actions

By Anthony B. Cavender Pillsbury Law. IHMM is a member of the Professional Certification Coalition [PCC] made up of 115 certification organizations around the country. Pillsbury Law is our legal counsel, from whom we share developments in our work to protect the interests of professional certifications in Washington and in the various states. We are sharing Pillsbury’s view of the impacts of the recent SCOTUS Chevron decision here.

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council, reversing a lower court ruling that set aside EPA’s Clean Air Act “bubble policy” of providing regulatory relief from certain permitting requirements.

SCOTUS granted certiorari in the Loper Bright and Relentless decisions to address whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified.

On June 28, 2024, SCOTUS struck down Chevron, arguing that the decision was flawed because it ignored the Constitution’s mandate that the federal judiciary must decide all questions of law and violated one of the principal provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The End of the Chevron Doctrine and the Reassertion of Judicial Primacy in Reviewing Federal Regulatory Actions

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Eugene A. Guilford, Jr., CAE