A World Without ‘Chevron Deference’: Nino Marchese in The Hill
Judicial deference should never be a partisan issue.
The Hill recently ran an op-ed authored by Judiciary Task Force Director Nino Marchese. The piece explains why even after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision ended federal judicial deference to agencies, nearly two-thirds of states still require it, ultimately undermining judicial independence and the separation of powers. The piece outlines growing state reforms and makes the case for nationwide action to ensure judges, not bureaucrats, interpret the law.
The Supreme Court eliminated so-called “Chevron deference” more than a year ago. Hatched from the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, the doctrine held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of the laws authorizing their activities if the language was ambiguous.
Over four decades, this misguided doctrine had warped the balance of power in our government, transforming agency staff from mere executors of the law into quasi-legislators. Thankfully, in last year’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, the court restored some sanity, ruling that federal judges were no longer required to defer to federal agency interpretations of law.
To say Chevron blurred the constitutional separation of powers would be an understatement. It required judges — those who hold the exclusive authority of legal interpretation — to effectively shrug and say, “Whatever the agency says, goes.” That’s not adjudication — it’s abdication.
Loper Bright reminds the nation that final legal interpretation belongs squarely with the judiciary — a core thread of our jurisprudential fabric stretching all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. When judges are forced to bow before bureaucrats on questions of law, we risk not only implementing the policy preferences of unelected regulators, but also expanding executive branch “lawmaking,” eroding the separation of powers characteristic of our system.