Judiciary

Commemorating the End of Chevron Deference

As we celebrate the deference-free landscape’s first birthday, the state victories in Loper Bright’s wake are even more deserving of praise.

A year has passed since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, eradicating the practice of judicial deference in the federal judiciary. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court held that federal courts are prohibited from deferring to agency interpretations of law when unclear. This 40-year-old practice was deemed “Chevron Deference” under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in 1984. But the deference-free landscape’s first birthday is the lesser reason for celebration; the various state landscapes that shifted in Loper Bright’s wake are even more deserving of praise.

The Loper Bright decision stripped legal interpretation authority away from unelected bureaucrats in executive branch agencies. It reaffirmed the proper framework for legal adjudication in the U.S. and helped strengthen our separation of powers system. However, this decision controls only the federal government.

Interpretation of the law has been a core responsibility of the judiciary since Marbury, with judges being tasked as the sole officers of legal resolution. Forcing those judges to defer to what a bureaucrat thinks the law says not only seeks to give the government a leg-up as a party in a litigation but also abdicates judges of their responsibility as adjudicators. Correcting this imbalance with Loper Bright was a monumental win.

Deference practices in the states have run rampant for some time and in a variety of ways. Some states have laws explicitly prohibiting the practice (whether in their state constitutions, statutes, or through judicial decision), while several states explicitly require deference in their courts. Unfortunately, the majority of states have either conflicting or unclear legal precedents regarding deference, making the implementation of the practice unpredictable, yet still alive. Fortunately, many states have acted in recent years to improve their deference statuses.

The issue of deference reform is a hot item moving rapidly through legislatures. State legislators are eager to take part in ensuring our judiciary is not circumvented by agency bureaucrats, and that those who make our laws are accountable to the people. Twelve states effectively rejected the deference practice before the Supreme Court acted, reforming their laws via legislation, ballot initiatives, and/or judicial rulings. Since Loper Bright came down last June, over 13 states introduced legislation to statutorily ban the practice, with three states succeeding this 2025 legislative session—Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma. These pieces of legislation are consistent with the ALEC Judicial Deference Reform Act, one of the ALEC Essential Policy Solutions for 2025.

Congratulations to Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma for seizing the momentum created by Loper Bright and effectuating these reforms. As the deference reform movement grows, the remaining 35 states will likely experience dozens of future anti-deference legislative introductions, utilizing the strengths of federalism and learning from other states to create their own deference-free landscapes.