Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Christensen v. Harris County and United States v. Mead Corp. first confined which agency interpretations qualified for Chevron deference. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo then expressly overruled Chevron and required courts to exercise independent judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act. The other reviewed opinions applied Chevron's former framework, rejected particular agency readings at step one, or repeated history reports of Loper Bright and adverse language concerning unrelated authorities.
20,639 later cases cite Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; 703 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court overruled Chevron and restored independent judicial judgment over whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court confined Chevron deference to agency interpretations carrying the force of law and held that informal opinion letters, policy statements, manuals, and enforcement guidelines do not qualify.
Christensen v. Harris County · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In Chevron, we held that a court must give effect to an agency’s regulation containing a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. ... Here, however, we confront an interpretation contained in an opinion letter, not one arrived at after, for example, a formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking. Interpretations such as those in opinion letters — like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law— do not warrant Chevron-style deference.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court further limited Chevron to interpretations made under delegated authority to act with the force of law and promulgated through an exercise of that authority.
United States v. Mead Corp. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We granted certiorari ... in order to consider the limits of Chevron deference owed to administrative practice in applying a statute. We hold that administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace