Extraordinary Leadership for North Dakota Banks
menu
menu
Advocacy
Strategic Partners
Education
NDBanks Benefit Trust
Communications
About
Events
Career Network
Sign In
Extraordinary Leadership for North Dakota Banks
About
Events
Career Network
Sign In
Advocacy
NDBA LIVE
Bank Exam Prep Center
Legislative Updates
Legal Publications
Legal Counsel
Legislative Committee
NDBankPAC
Advocacy Resources
Strategic Partners
Endorsed Vendors
Partner Resources
Business Partner Directory
Associate Member Listing
2024 Associate Member Guide
Associate Member Benefits
Associate Member Application
Sponsorship Opportunities
Advertising Opportunities
Education
2025 Tri-State Trust Conference
Peer Groups
Conferences
Schools
IT Certification Programs
Online Training
Financial Literacy
NDBanks Benefit Trust
NDBBT Board of Directors
Communications
News
NDBA Bulletin
2025 Legislative Updates
Service Award Application
Directory
Advertising Opportunities
Bank Holiday Signs
Advocacy
Strategic Partners
Education
NDBanks Benefit Trust
Communications
Home
»
Communications
»
News
»
Supreme Court Overturns Legal Test for Deferring to Agency Interpretations
Supreme Court Overturns Legal Test for Deferring to Agency Interpretations
Posted:
Jul 10 2024
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding “Chevron deference,” which instructs courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The majority ruled that courts must instead rely on their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
The 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a legal test for when courts should consider deferring to federal agencies. However, in their decision for Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the majority of justices struck down that test, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Chevron “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached’ had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority.
Chevron has been cited in numerous legal cases involving questions of agencies’ statutory authority. The majority ruled that those previous cases still stand. “The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful… are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the court’s change in interpretive methodology,” Roberts wrote.
To read the decision, visit:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf