Glossary

Chevron deference

A former rule requiring courts to accept a federal agency's reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute it administers.

Also called: Chevron doctrine, Chevron two-step

Chevron deference was a doctrine of administrative law named after Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). It told courts reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute to ask two questions: first, whether Congress had directly spoken to the issue; and second, if the statute was silent or ambiguous, whether the agency's reading was reasonable. If it was, the court had to defer, even if it would have read the law differently.

For four decades the doctrine gave agencies wide latitude to fill gaps in statutes and to change interpretations when administrations changed. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Supreme Court overruled Chevron, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their own independent judgment about what a statute means.

Critics of Chevron, mostly conservative and libertarian, argued it let the administrative state expand its own power and shifted the judicial duty to interpret law to the executive branch. Defenders said agencies have technical expertise and political accountability that judges lack, and that ending deference would bring uncertainty and more litigation. The ruling did not automatically reopen past cases decided under Chevron.

Last reviewed November 8, 2026

In the index now

Related terms