Implications of Ending the Chevron Doctrine

Regulations imposed by government agencies are typically well-intentioned, aiming to ensure safety, protect the environment, and prevent fraud. However, the continuous expansion of the administrative state poses a threat to individual liberties and the economy. Estimating the cost of compliance with extensive regulations is a challenging task. Reports from organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Competitive Enterprise Institute reveal staggering figures. Compliance with federal regulations is estimated to cost trillions annually, straining businesses and impacting various sectors from food production to transportation.

The pervasive influence of federal regulatory agencies is evident in the Federal Register, a vast collection of regulations that seems to grow incessantly year by year. Even during periods labeled as “deregulation,” the number of rules and pages of federal regulation continues to increase, albeit at a slower pace. In 2024, there were approximately 90,000 pages of federal regulations in the Federal Register, highlighting the extensive control exerted by the government over various aspects of society. Compliance costs are staggering, consuming billions of hours annually and resulting in slower economic growth, reduced per capita income, higher prices, and limited job and wage growth, particularly burdening smaller businesses.

For the past fifty years, the Chevron Doctrine has played a pivotal role in expanding the administrative state. This legal principle, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA, Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, mandated courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes if the interpretation was deemed “reasonable.” However, this doctrine significantly curtailed the ability of courts to challenge agency rulemaking, allowing agencies to wield both executive and quasi-judicial authority with minimal oversight.

In a landmark 2024 ruling, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned the forty-year practice of Chevron deference. This decision reinstated the crucial role of judges in evaluating the constitutionality of regulations issued by administrative agencies, enabling citizens to challenge regulations without automatic deference to agency interpretations. The ruling empowers courts to scrutinize the actions of regulatory bodies more closely, ensuring accountability and preventing unchecked expansion of government authority.

The Chevron Doctrine’s legacy signified a period where agency expertise was prioritized over judicial scrutiny, leading to unchecked regulatory growth and excessive bureaucratic control. By dismantling this doctrine, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step towards reining in the power of administrative agencies and restoring balance between regulatory oversight and individual freedoms. This legal shift marks a pivotal moment in the relationship between government regulations and personal liberties, safeguarding economic prosperity and individual rights against the encroaching influence of the administrative state.