Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument

This special podcast episode, hosted by Senior Counsel and former Consumer Financial Services Practice Leader Alan Kaplinsky, sets the stage for the upcoming oral argument in the two U.S. Supreme Court cases where the fate of Chevron deference hangs in the balance. This episode provides an essential roadmap for anyone who will listen to the oral argument or is following this critical challenge to this important doctrine.

Our special guest is Kent Barnett, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and J. Alton Hosch Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.

On January 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, presenting the question of whether the Court should overrule, or at least clarify, its 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. As discussed in our earlier blog, that decision established what became known as “Chevron deference”, which requires judges to accept an agency’s interpretation of federal law if indicated by the outcome of a two-step analysis defined in the Chevron decision.

In this special podcast, we first discuss the importance of Chevron deference, specifically with respect to the consumer financial services industry. We follow with an explanation of the background of the two cases to be argued, and a detailed explanation of the question now before the Court. Professor Barnett provides fascinating historical insights about the Chevron doctrine, and the political influences that first elevated it and then, more recently, have called it into question. We then explore why the Court now has agreed to reconsider Chevron, and the impact of the Chevron doctrine on the courtroom success of federal agencies.

Finally, we venture predictions as to the likely outcome of the Loper Bright and Raimondo cases, including possible clarifications that would give courts further guidance on how to apply the Chevron framework, and the potentially seismic effects that might ensue if the Court should decide to overrule Chevron completely.