Debate Desk
Did Ending Chevron Hand Too Much Power to Unelected Judges?
Loper Bright (2024) returned the job of interpreting the law to courts rather than agencies; Congress keeps the power to write clearer statutes.
The claim
Defenders of Chevron deference say that agencies have the expertise to fill gaps in complex statutes, that judges are generalists and that overruling it will lead to inconsistent results and weaker protection of health, safety and the environment.
The answer in three points
- The Constitution vests the judicial power in the courts. Interpreting the law is the courts' job, as Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison (1803), that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Chevron asked judges to defer to an agency's reading when a statute was ambiguous, and that placed the interpreter in the party's chair.
- The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 directs courts to decide questions of law. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) held that courts must use their own independent judgment and may still give weight to an agency's expertise on facts and judgments within the statute.
- Congress remains the lawmaker. If a statute needs to be clearer or to delegate authority explicitly, Congress can say so. Ending Chevron pressed Congress to do its work, rather than leaving the executive to fill gaps by creative reading.
Judges decide what the law means, and Congress decides what the law says. Each branch has its job.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 and overruled it in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on June 28, 2024, by a vote of 6 to 3.
- The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 provides that the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, according to 5 U.S.C. 706.
- The Federal Register published 2,441 final rules in 2025 and 3,248 in 2024.
What they will say next
"Judges lack technical expertise." They can hear from experts, and Loper Bright allows courts to respect an agency's careful, consistent views. Judges decide technical cases in patent, antitrust and medical malpractice law every day.
"This will create chaos." Courts managed before 1984, and agencies still write rules. Challenges will be decided on the law, and Congress can respond.
"Corporations will win." Chevron began as a win for the Reagan administration's deregulatory agency, and it has served both sides. The principle is that the law should be read by the courts whoever benefits.
"Agencies know best." An agency that is also the judge of the limits of its own power has little check on it. The separation of powers is meant to prevent that.
The rule of law means that the law says what it says.
"Conservatives praised Chevron when it helped them." Some did, and the question is what the Constitution requires. A principle that applies only when it favors your side is not a principle.