The Supreme Court ended the policy known as “Chevron deference” over a year ago. This policy originated from a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that when laws are unclear, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation.
For more than four decades, this principle shifted the power dynamics within the government, turning agency workers from mere enforcers of the law into figures with significant legislative influence. Fortunately, last year’s ruling in Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reinstated some clarity, deciding that federal judges do not have to accept federal agencies’ interpretations of the law.
It’s not an overstatement to say that Chevron muddied the lines of constitutional power. The law pressured judges, who inherently hold the authority to interpret legislation, to set aside their judgment in favor of agency views. This isn’t exercising judgment; it’s stepping back.
Roper Bright reiterates that the ultimate power of legal interpretation rests with the judiciary. This has always been a fundamental part of our legal system, tracing back to historic cases like Marbury v. Madison. When judges bend to bureaucratic interpretations of law, they not only risk advancing the preferences of unelected officials but also blur the legislative lines within the executive branch, which challenges our separation of powers.
The Roper Bright case cleared a path for federal courts, but the situation at the state level still needs attention. Almost two-thirds of states are still operating under some degree of deference, creating a confusing legal landscape with ambiguous or inconsistent precedents.
In jurisdictions where deference is respected, judges often defer to individuals without any electoral mandate or authority to rule on laws. These government officials enforce state laws and create regulations based on legislative intent but frequently interpret the laws’ meanings as they see fit, especially when the language is vague.
When taken to court, these agency interpretations often hold strong and are unlikely to be overturned. Courts are designed to clarify the ultimate legal meaning, but the practice of deference undermines this, allowing bureaucrats to effectively gain legislative power.
On a positive note, states are beginning to take steps to abolish these practices. Before Roper Bright highlighted this issue, twelve states had already sought to end deference through various legislative and judicial reforms. Following the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, three states banned deference through new laws.
This year, over thirteen states proposed coordinated anti-subordination bills, with five states—Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas—successfully passing legislation against deference.
Respect for judicial authority shouldn’t be a partisan matter. This is fundamentally a constitutional issue, one that was settled in the federal arena over a year ago. However, the struggle to eliminate deference continues across many of the states. For the sake of judicial independence and accountability to democracy, it’s crucial that all states eliminate deference and ensure law interpretation belongs solely to the courts. Otherwise, we risk further undermining our vital separation of powers, which is a cornerstone of what defines the United States as a prominent example of limited government.
