On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, which created what is known as the “Chevron Doctrine,”
The Chevron Doctrin called for judicial deference to agencies in situations where the law is unclear.
The Court’s overrule of the doctrine made it so the Administrative Procedures Act now requires courts to exercise their independent discretion in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
The Chevron Doctrine involved the question of whether an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation was consistent with the Clean Air Act. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that where the statute drafted by Congress was not clear, or left some ambiguity, courts should defer to agencies authorized to administer the law at issue in deciding the meaning of the statue.
In explicitly overruling the Chevron Doctrine, the Court declared that under the Administrative Procedures Act, it is the courts, and not government agencies, that have the authority to interpret law.
While courts should respect agency decisions, the Court found that the Chevron Doctrine went too far and removed the Court’s ability to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting statutes. Courts can respect the opinions of government agencies, but it is ultimately up to the courts to determine the interpretation of law. This includes consideration of an agency’s rulemaking pursuant to notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Court’s Decision and RFID
FTCLDF has received questions regarding how the Supreme Court’s decision may impact the new USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) mandatory rule relating to electronic animal identification (RFID).
There will certainly be legal challenges to the new rule, particularly if Joint Resolution No. 167 filed by Representative Harriet Hageman (R. WY) and Senator Lummis (R.WY) and Senator Rounds’ (R. S.D.) bill S. 4282 both fail to pass. (Learn more about taking action to support these efforts.)
When considering the RFID rule, courts will no longer be required to defer to the APHIS interpretation of the federal law that APHIS is authorized to enforce.
The new APHIS rule was supposedly implemented pursuant to the Animal Health Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 8301, et. seq., which grants the USDA the authority to issue orders and regulations to prevent the introduction into the United States and dissemination within the United States any pest or disease of livestock.
Under this law, APHIS has the authority to implement rules relevant to preventing animal disease. Yet when the courts review the new APHIS rule requiring mandatory electronic ID, the courts will look to the statute itself, and will not need to defer to the agency concerning its interpretation of the law or its decisions.
Important Note
Please note that the decision does not necessarily curtail activities of government agencies. What the decision holds is that in a legal challenge, the courts will no longer grant deference to the agency’s interpretation of the law.
Read more about RFID and it’s impact on independent ranchers and farmers here.