In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves through the agricultural sector and beyond, the United States Supreme Court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024, overturning the longstanding doctrine of Chevron deference. This decision, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, has significant implications for how courts will interpret and apply statutory laws, particularly those administered by federal agencies.
The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had been a cornerstone of administrative law, guiding courts on when to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. However, the Loper Bright ruling has shifted this paradigm, asserting that courts should no longer defer to agency interpretations merely because a statute is ambiguous. Instead, courts are now tasked with applying their own judgment to determine the law’s meaning.
Kelli Ludlum, a Research Fellow at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Policy, explains the significance of this shift. “The overturning of Chevron deference means that courts will now have a more active role in interpreting statutes, rather than deferring to agency interpretations,” Ludlum says. “This could lead to more consistent and predictable legal outcomes, as courts will be applying their own judgment rather than deferring to potentially varying agency interpretations.”
Brigit Rollins, a Staff Attorney at the National Agricultural Law Center, echoes Ludlum’s sentiments. “This ruling will have far-reaching implications for agricultural law,” Rollins notes. “Many agricultural regulations are implemented by federal agencies, and this decision could lead to more judicial scrutiny of those regulations.”
As lower courts begin to navigate this new legal landscape, they are likely to turn to other Supreme Court cases for guidance. One such case is Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a 1944 decision that predates Chevron and addresses the issue of agency deference. The Loper Bright decision references Skidmore multiple times, suggesting that the level of agency deference set in Skidmore may still be appropriate in certain circumstances.
In Skidmore, the Supreme Court considered what activities counted as “work” under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case involved seven employees of a meatpacking plant who sought overtime pay for “wait time” when they were required to be on-call but not actively engaged in emergency response.
The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division had issued guidance documents interpreting the FLSA requirements, but these documents did not carry the force of law. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the agency’s views were entitled to some deference due to its “body of experience and informed judgment.”
The Skidmore test, as it came to be known, established that courts should consider factors such as the agency’s reasoning, thoroughness, and consistency when deciding how much weight to give an agency’s interpretation. This test has been further refined through subsequent case law, providing courts with a framework for evaluating agency interpretations in a post-Chevron world.
The Loper Bright ruling has undoubtedly changed the legal landscape, but it has also opened up new questions and avenues for exploration. As courts grapple with the implications of this decision, they will likely turn to cases like Skidmore for guidance. The coming years will be pivotal in shaping how courts interpret and apply statutory laws, with significant implications for the agricultural sector and beyond.