US Supreme Court Undercuts Long-Standing Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies

The US Supreme Court has wrestled with how much power the US Congress can delegate to the executive branch while maintaining the balance of power established in the US Constitution. As a result, court rulings involving agency action have produced different outcomes.¹ Courts may show a willingness to respect an agency’s expertise, also known as judicial deference. However, deference can vary depending on the specifics of a case, the court’s interpretation of the law, and even the personal views of the judges.² To put it in perspective, consider the spectrum of deference an attending physician may afford to recommendations from a clinical pharmacist.

When faced with a legal issue, courts generally follow 1 of 2 approaches: either stick with past decisions and apply an established rule or set a new rule if the current case is different from those before it.³ The practice of following previous rulings is called stare decisis and is a cornerstone of the US legal system.⁴ Although not always predictable, this approach helps provide consistency and avoid random outcomes.⁵ Historically, courts rarely overturn previous decisions, but as recent landmark cases demonstrate, there are exceptions. It is important to note that court rulings set the standard not only for future Supreme Court cases but also for lower courts.

Since 1984, the Chevron doctrine was a key principle in cases involving federal agencies.⁶ The namesake Supreme Court case, involving the US Environmental Protection Agency, created a stepwise approach for dealing with legal questions related to agency actions.⁷ If a law was unclear and Congress did not provide specific guidance, Chevron guided the court to defer to the agency’s interpretation, provided that certain conditions were met. Laws are often written in broad terms on purpose, which gives agencies the flexibility to apply their expertise and fill in gaps.⁷ Chevron acknowledged the critical role agencies play in creating and implementing policies under authority from Congress.⁸

In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ended Chevron’s 40-year influence, although it is important to note that Chevron had not been used to decide a Supreme Court case in over 14 years.⁸ Loper involved the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which issued a rule requiring boat operators to hire government-certified monitors to prevent overfishing.⁷ However, the rule did not specify who would pay for the monitors.⁷ The NMFS decided boat operators should cover the cost and won in earlier cases where lower courts applied Chevron.⁹ The Supreme Court majority reversed those lower decisions, arguing that although an agency’s expertise can be respected, it shouldn’t override the court’s role in interpreting the law.⁷

What does this outcome mean? Should an attending physician honor the recommendations of a pharmacist solely because they are a medication expert? Just as that clinical scenario raises different viewpoints, there are varying opinions on how much power agencies should have. One perspective is that the outcome in Loper is a neutral decision that ensures the courts, not agencies, have the final say on how laws are interpreted.¹⁰ Courts can still consider agency expertise, but the ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in deciding what the law means. It also emphasizes the importance of Congress being as specific and clear as possible when crafting legislation. Others see this as a trend toward reducing the authority of agencies. In fields such as health care, this could open the door to more legal challenges and criticism.

Although Loper presents a momentous shift, it is important to stay informed on the multitude of implemented and proposed changes that can impact the balance between the courts and federal agencies.

REFERENCES

1. Supreme Court rewrites the rules for judicial deference to agency interpretations. Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. July 2, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.constangy.com/newsroom-newsletters-870

2. Scalia A. Judicial deference to administrative interpretations of law. Duke Law J. 1989;3:511-521.

3. Healy T. Stare decisis as a constitutional requirement. West VA Law Rev. 2001;104(1):43-121.

4. Understanding stare decisis. American Bar Association. December 16, 2022. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/understand-stare-decisis/

5. Kozel RJ. Stare decisis as judicial doctrine. Wash Lee Law Rev. 2010;67:411-466.

6. Chevron deference. Legal Information Institute. Updated July 2024. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

7. Baron Z, Ranganathan S, Twinamatsiko A, Rosenbaum S. Supreme Court overrules Chevron doctrine: ripple effects across health care. HealthAffairs. July 19, 2024. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/supreme-court-overrules-chevron-doctrine-ripple-effects-across-health-care

8. Zurcher A, Tawfik N, Lambert L, Epstein K. The Chevron deference, and why it mattered. BBC. June 28, 2024. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51ywwrq45qo

9. US Supreme Court: end of the term opinions. Public Health Law Watch. July 16, 2024. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.publichealthlawwatch.org/litigation-updates

10. May J, Clarkson T, Porter JA. Chevron is gone: what does it mean for health care enforcement? American Health Law Association. July 12, 2024. Accessed November 11, 2024. https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/content-library/health-law-weekly/article/5305df4c-fff6-4298-9048-a4cc0a5540a2/chevron-is-gone-what-does-it-mean-for-health-care