Why Loper v Raimondo aka the 2024 Chevron Rescision Is One Step Closer to Dictatorship

First Principles: What WAS the Chevron Doctrine and How did it work?

Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle _that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation_ of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. provided federal courts with the following two-step process for reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute:

Step one

A court must determine whether Congress expressed intent in the statute and, if so, whether or not the statute's intent is ambiguous.

• If the intent of Congress is unambiguous, or clearly stated, then the inquiry must end. Agencies must carry out the clearly expressed intent of Congress.
• If, however, the intent of Congress is unclear, or if the statute lacks direct language on a specific point, then a federal court must decide whether the agency interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute-one that is not arbitrary or capricious or obviously contrary to the statute.

Step two

In examining the agency's reasonable construction, a court must assess whether the decision of Congress to leave an ambiguity, or fail to include express language on a specific point, was done explicitly or implicitly.

• If the decision of Congress was explicit, then the agency's regulations are binding on federal courts unless those regulations are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute.
• If the decision of Congress was implicit, then so long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable, a federal court cannot substitute its own statutory construction superior to the agency's construction

(https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine))

The Crux

So there we have it, a clear framework to apply on whether or not the SCOTUS SHOULD be offering a decision and establishing boundries on how far reaching those decisions can be.

Removing this guardrail from the SCOTUS will allow them to skip the above review process, and (since no longer prevented from doing so) "substitute its own statutory construction superior to the agency's construction."