By: Jordan Meadows
Staff Writer
The US Supreme Court made a significant decision on Friday, overturning a controversial 40-year-old precedent that mandated courts to defer to government agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws by a 6-3 margin. This marks the end of the “Chevron deference,” coinciding with North Carolina’s top court preparing to address its deference case.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinions in two federal high court decisions, challenging the 1984 precedent set in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This doctrine stipulated that when Congress had not explicitly addressed a legal issue, courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statute if deemed reasonable. However, in a 35-page ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority justices discarded this doctrine, criticizing it as “fundamentally misguided.”
“The deference that Chevron requires of courts reviewing agency action cannot be squared with the [Administrative Procedure Act],” Roberts wrote. Approved in 1946, the APA prescribes procedures for government agencies’ action and “delineates the basic contours of judicial review of such action,” the chief justice explained.
Roberts firmly dismissed the notion that agencies, rather than courts, should be the primary arbiters of ambiguous federal laws. He emphasized that even when these ambiguities pertain to technical or scientific matters within an agency’s expertise, Congress intended for courts to address such statutory questions. Courts, he noted, benefit from extensive briefing by parties involved and amicus curiae submissions.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan warned that the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday would create significant upheaval within the legal system.
“This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not — in fact, cannot — write perfectly complete regulatory statutes” Kagan wrote. “It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actors will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court.”
When the Supreme Court initially rendered its decision in the Chevron case over 40 years ago, it wasn’t seen as particularly significant. However, over the ensuing decades, it evolved into one of the most pivotal rulings in federal administrative law, referenced more than 18,000 times by federal courts.
The Chevron decision, which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, thereby relaxing emissions regulations, was initially praised by conservatives. Yet, over time, it became a focal point for those aiming to reduce the power of administrative agencies. Critics argued that courts, not agencies, should have the final say in interpreting laws.
According to Kagan, by overturning the Chevron doctrine, the Supreme Court has delivered a profound shock to the legal system.
Friday’s ruling was part of a trio of cases in the 2023-24 term aimed at limiting federal agency authority, a conservative push sometimes termed the “war on the administrative state.” Earlier in October, the court heard arguments challenging the constitutionality of the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case it upheld last month by a 7-2 margin. Just the day before Friday’s decision, the justices also curtailed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to impose fines through internal proceedings in securities fraud cases.
As the US Supreme Court delivered its ruling on deference, North Carolina’s Supreme Court prepared to address a similar issue. The John Locke Foundation, NC Chamber, and NC Farm Bureau all advocate for reform in how state courts handle administrative deference—the practice where courts defer to government agencies’ interpretations of laws or regulations in legal challenges.
Administrative deference has been a contentious issue across the country, with high courts in at least nine states issuing decisions to restrict or eliminate this practice. Most recently, the Ohio Supreme Court took such action in 2022.
On May 29, several advocacy groups submitted separate friend-of-the-court briefs in a case involving the dismissal of Alvin Mitchell, a professor at Winston-Salem State University. The North Carolina Appeals Court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the University of North Carolina System’s termination of Mitchell in 2019. According to Judge Toby Hampson’s majority opinion, Mitchell was dismissed due to three alleged acts of misconduct occurring between the fall of 2015 and the fall of 2017.
“This case also presents a gross violation of the separation of powers required by the North Carolina Constitution,” Mitchell’s lawyers wrote. “Below, Professor Mitchell argued that his termination violated the procedures contained in regulations promulgated by Winston-Salem State University and the UNC Board of Governors.”
The order indicated that the justices would focus on a specific question: “Under North Carolina law, when, if ever, should a court defer to an agency’s interpretation of the rules and regulations that the agency has promulgated?”
Following the university’s Board of Governors affirming Mitchell’s dismissal, a trial judge also supported this decision in July 2021. At the Appeals Court, Judges Hampson and Valerie Zachary voted to uphold the trial court’s ruling. Judge Hunter Murphy agreed that Mitchell was afforded due process but dissented on the issue of whether a First Amendment violation occurred concerning a letter Mitchell had sent to a supervisor.
Currently, no oral argument date has been scheduled at the state Supreme Court for Mitchell v. The University of NC Board of Governors.
