Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
Introduction
The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine is a two-part podcast episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast. In Part I, host Chris Willis interviews law professor Amy Coney Barrett about the Chevron Doctrine, a legal doctrine that gives deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Barrett argues that the Chevron Doctrine is no longer good law and should be overruled.
A Look at the Chevron Doctrine
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. that courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if that interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine, known as the Chevron Doctrine, has been used by courts to uphold a wide range of agency interpretations, even those that are arguably incorrect.
Criticisms of the Chevron Doctrine
Critics of the Chevron Doctrine argue that it gives too much power to agencies. They argue that agencies are not always experts in the fields they regulate and that they may have political motivations for interpreting statutes in a certain way. Critics also argue that the Chevron Doctrine allows agencies to avoid judicial review of their actions.
The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine?
In recent years, the Chevron Doctrine has come under increasing fire from the Supreme Court. In 2015, the Court ruled in King v. Burwell that the Internal Revenue Service's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act was not entitled to deference under the Chevron Doctrine. And in 2017, the Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC that the Securities and Exchange Commission's interpretation of a securities law was not entitled to Chevron deference.
These rulings suggest that the Supreme Court is becoming more skeptical of the Chevron Doctrine. It is possible that the Court will eventually overrule the doctrine, which would have a significant impact on the way that courts review agency actions.
Comments