Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Chevron deference doctrine should be overruled or clarified. The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Court examined the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and the historical context of judicial review. Ultimately, the Court decided to overrule Chevron, emphasizing that courts must exercise independent judgment when determining the meaning of statutory provisions, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The Court held that the Chevron deference doctrine is overruled, requiring courts to exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Separation of Powers is relevant to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The case discusses the allocation of interpretive authority between the judiciary and executive agencies, which is a core issue of separation of powers.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Chevron deference also violates our Constitution's separation of powers, as I have previously explained at length.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The case involves the judicial review process and the requirement for courts to exercise independent judgment, which relates to procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The APA thus codifes for agency cases the unremarkable, yet elemental proposition refected by judicial practice dating back to Marbury: that courts decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that support the summary and concepts above.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Chevron defies the command of the APA that 'the reviewing court'—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to 'decide all relevant questions of law'.
The Court held that agency interpretations of statutes—like agency interpretations of the Constitution—are not entitled to deference.