Federal administrative law impacts nearly every element of our lives. The Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), created a two-part framework for litigation involving congressional statutory law and regulatory agencies that enforce that law. Recently, a group of New England fishermen challenged the feasibility of the Chevron framework after the National Marine Fisheries Service instituted a Final Rule[1] that required fishing companies to cover the costs of on-vessel observers. The Supreme Court ordered two factually similar cases consolidated, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 22-451, and Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, 22-1219, after they challenged the Final Rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the future of Chevron.  

Part I is a factual overview of Chevron. Part II addresses the arguments advanced by Loper and Relentless. Part III addresses the defenses made by the Department of Commerce. Part IV offers a concluding remark and suggests further reading on federal administrative law.

I. Introduction to Chevron

The Chevron case centered around a dispute involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 which addressed air quality standards.[2] In response, the Court created a two-part framework designed to create a uniform system of handling disputes involving enforcement of federal administrative law.[3]

At step one, a federal court determines whether Congress “has spoken directly to the precise question at issue,” and if that intent is clear, then the court enforces the congressional meaning. [4]

The second step applies when the court cannot clearly discern the meaning of the statute. Here, federal court defers to the administrative agency’s permissible construction of the statute.[5] The Chevron Court created a mandatory deference to the administrative agency because of both the express delegation of power from Congress to the federal

agency and because those federal agencies tasked with enforcing federal law develop reasonable interpretations of the federal law they enforce.[6]

II. Relentless and Loper Cases

A. Factual Background

Loper and Relentless challenged the applicability of Chevron in a case surrounding enforcement of federal observers on commercial fishing vessels. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), operators of certain commercial fishing operators must allow federal observers onboard their vessels, and under limited circumstances, the vessel owner must compensate the federal observer.[7] Congress delegated the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to enforce the MSA.[8]

In response to a lack of funding, the local New England Council operating under the NMFS enacted a Final Rule that required vessel owners to pay the costs of an industry funded monitoring program that was designed to supplement the federal observer program.[9]

B. The Arguments

Loper and Relentless argued in favor of eliminating Chevron for two reasons. First, it robs the judiciary from independently interpreting the law because at step-two, Chevron requires federal judges to acquiesce to the reasonable policy interpretations of the federal agency. [10]

Second, Loper and Relentless asserted giving deference to federal administrative agencies violated due process of law because “it is patently unfair for a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation in cases where the agency itself is a litigant, before that court, in the actual case at hand.”[11]

Much of the Relentless and Loper arguments were rooted in the historic role of the judiciary. Historically, the drafters of the Constitution envisioned a judge applying the law as it was, not the government’s “preference as to what the law should be.”[12] Because Chevron required judges to defer the agency’s interpretation of the law, the challengers pointed to the inherent unfairness of Chevron’s application because it tips the scales of justice “in favor of the most powerful litigants, the federal government.”[13] Accordingly, because differing minds can reach different reasonable interpretations, Chevron laid the foundation for inconsistent application of federal law.[14]

III. Department of Commerce’s Argument

In response, the Department of Commerce argued that Chevron promoted national uniformity.[15] A central theme in defending Chevron, the Department of Commerce pointed out the citizenry can hold accountable elected officials who promulgate unpopular regulations.[16] The Department of Commerce also relied on a historic argument that executive officers traditionally received discretion in interpreting federal law.[17] Notably, the Department of Commerce heavily relied on stare decisis considerations.

 As the Department of Commerce shows, more than 70 cases risk being overturned if the Court eliminates the Chevron approach.[18]In sum, the Department of Commerce argued that overruling Chevron would create untenable chaos within administrative law.

IV. Conclusion and Administrative Law Books at the Sol Blatt, Jr. Law Library

Administrative law intersects with our daily lives in a multitude of ways—from environmental regulations to federal observers on herring fishing vessels—understanding federal administrative law is a key part of understanding how everyday citizens interact with the federal government, as well as your legal practice. The Loper and Relentless cases touch on the very meaning of the role of the judiciary. Rooted in historic practice, the challengers presented compelling arguments that judges should be empowered to make their own independent decisions without automatically deferring to the judgment of the federal agency.

The cases were argued on January 17, 2024, and the Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision by the end of this term. The Supreme Court website is a great tool to use for researching the Supreme Court. You can access docketed pleadings, briefs, and argument audio recordings and transcripts. Here are links for the Relentless docket and oral argument/transcript and the Loper docket and oral argument/transcript.

The Sol Blatt Jr. Law Library contains several useful administrative law books including:

• Ronald Levin, et. al., Administrative law and process in a nutshell, 6th ed. 2017. Call Number: KF5402 .Z9 .L48 2017 (Study Aid).
• Linda Jellum, Mastering Administrative Law, 2d ed. 2018. Call Number: KF5402 .A83 2018 (Study Aid).
• Linda Jellum, et. al., Questions & Answers: Administrative Law: Multiple-Choice and Short Answer Questions and Answers, 4th ed. 2023. Call Number: KF5402 .W43 2023 (Study Aid).
• Lisa Miller, The Art of Advocacy in Administrative Law and Practice, 2019. Call Number: KF5402 .M55 2019.
• William Funk, et. al., Administrative Law: Examples & Explanations, 5th ed. 2015. Call Number:  KF5402 .F86 2015 (Study Aids).
• James O’Reilly, ed., Careers in Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice; With Contributions from 19 Leaders in Government Related Practice, 2010. Call Number: KF299.A32 C37 2010.

For additional assistance and more book suggestions, visit the Sol Blatt Jr. Law Library Reference desk where  friendly law librarians and staff can assist you

Justin Hites

J.D. Candidate 2024
Charleston School of Law
Sol Blatt Jr. Law Library Research Fellow
Moot Court Advocacy Board
Judicial Board Member

[1] 50 C.F.R. 648.11(m)(4)(i) and (iii) (2023). The regulatory text was amended during this litigation, effective January 9, 2023. 87 Fed. Reg. 75,852, 75,885 (Dec. 9, 2022).

[2] Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685.

[3] Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984).

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 843.

[6] Id.

[7] 16 U.S.C. §  1801(a)(3).

[8] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1802(39), 1855(d).

[9] 85 Fed. Reg. at 7414.

[10] Brief for Petitioner at 2, Relentless, Inc., et. al. v. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 22-1219 (S. Ct. argued Jan. 17, 2024).

[11] Id. at 3.

[12] Id. at 17.

[13] Id. at 31.

[14] Brief for Petitioner Loper Bright Enterprises at 31, Relentless, Inc., et. al. v. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 22-1219 (S. Ct. argued Jan. 17, 2024).

[15] Brief for Respondent at 17, Relentless, Inc., et. al. v. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 22-1219 (S. Ct. argued Jan. 17, 2024). 

[16] Id. at 19.

[17] Id. at 24.

[18] Id. at 35.