AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Chevron Doctrine vs. Major Questions Doctrine: combine for a stronger court
The distinction between Chevron doctrine and major questions doctrine highlights the tension between agency authority and judicial interpretation. The major questions doctrine posits that certain significant issues require explicit statutory authority for agency action, constraining the agencies' broad interpretation of statutes. Conversely, the Chevron doctrine allows agencies to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes, granting them deference if their interpretations are reasonable and within their expertise. The upcoming judicial decision has the potential to limit the Chevron principle, shifting the role of statutory interpretation from agencies to courts, which would diminish the agencies' authority and increase the court's role in deciding complex regulatory questions. This combination of limiting Chevron alongside the major questions doctrine would further empower courts, effectively sidelining agencies from their principal role in law implementation.