Chevron deference. Until recently, it was one of the biggest government intrusions into daily life that most Americans had never heard of. In a nation built on laws, our lives are too often shaped not by elected representatives but by obscure rules, dense regulations, and legal jargon few people outside Washington, DC, can decipher.
What is Chevron deference?
Chevron deference was a legal principle established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It held that when Congress passed a law with vague or unclear language, federal courts should defer to how a government agency interpreted that law so long as the agency’s interpretation was “reasonable.”
The landmark case hinged on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined “source” in the Clean Air Act. Chevron U.S.A. backed the agency’s flexible view that an entire facility could count as one source of emissions, easing compliance. The NRDC argued that each smokestack should count separately, requiring stricter controls.
The Court sided with the EPA, holding that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation. While the ruling may seem innocent on its face, it set the stage for a wide-reaching, dangerous precedent. By telling courts to step aside, the decision gave agencies sweeping power to decide how forcefully laws would be enforced, opening the door to decades of agency-driven policymaking and regulatory expansion.
Why does this matter?
While most Americans have never heard of Chevron deference, they’ve lived under its consequences. By telling courts to defer to agencies, power shifted away from Congress and was handed to unelected bureaucrats. Instead of elected representatives writing clear laws and judges interpreting them, agencies were given permission to decide for themselves what the law meant.
These decisions are not abstract. They affect the price of energy, the rules for small businesses, the cost of healthcare, and even the choices families can make about education. Under Chevron, billion-dollar regulations could be created, enforced, and upheld with little accountability to voters. The doctrine made it easier for Washington, DC, to grow more powerful, while ordinary Americans had fewer opportunities to push back.
This is the real legacy of Chevron deference. Whether in Washington, DC, or the states, vague laws plus judicial deference gave agencies a blank check to expand their reach.
How has Chevron shaped federal power?
In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes (1985), the Supreme Court upheld the Army Corps of Engineers’ broad reading of the Clean Water Act. That ruling gave federal regulators new power to require permits for private development on wetlands, a shift that set the stage for decades of expanding federal control over land use. What started as a dispute over one Michigan housing project became the legal foothold for Washington to reach deeper into farmers’ fields, ranchland, and private property across the country.
Another example comes from healthcare. In American Hospital Association v. Becerra (2022), the Department of Health and Human Services slashed reimbursement rates for outpatient drugs provided by hospitals. The statute governing these rates was ambiguous, and the DC Circuit Court upheld HHS’s cuts by applying Chevron deference. The policy would have especially hurt hospitals serving low-income and rural patients, where reimbursements already ran thin. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision, ruling unanimously that HHS had exceeded its authority. By declining to defer to the agency, the Court signaled a growing willingness to question Chevron’s logic.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan showed just how far Chevron could take an agency. In 2015, the EPA claimed that a vague section of the Clean Air Act gave it authority to force power plants to shift electricity generation away from coal and natural gas toward wind and solar. Courts applying Chevron let this expansive reading stand, even though Congress had never voted to remake the nation’s energy system. The plan would have driven up costs for utilities, raised energy bills for families, and weakened the reliability of the electric grid. Only in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) did the Supreme Court step in, ruling that Congress had not clearly authorized such sweeping action.
Each of these regulatory burdens imposed billions of dollars in additional costs across the U.S. economy, and these are just three examples among thousands of onerous regulations accumulated over decades of federal magnification. Chevron gave federal bureaucrats the upper hand in nearly every dispute, expanding their power year after year while citizens, businesses, and states carried the costs.
What is changing now?
For nearly four decades, Chevron deference tilted the balance of power toward federal agencies. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court began backing away from the doctrine and then abandoned it altogether. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court introduced the “major questions doctrine,” holding that agencies need explicit congressional approval before taking actions of vast economic and political significance.
Then, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overturned Chevron Deference entirely. Now, judges cannot simply defer to agencies whenever a law is unclear. Courts must do the work of interpreting statutes themselves, as the Constitution envisioned.
The implications are enormous. Federal agencies now face stricter limits, and their ability to expand their own power is sharply curtailed. Congress will be under pressure to write clearer laws if it wants agencies to act. Still, many regulations haven’t been directly challenged yet and remain on the books.
How is our Network responding?
Even before the Supreme Court overturned Chevron, SPN affiliates were leading efforts to check agency overreach at the state level.
One of the strongest solutions has been the REINS Act, short for “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny.” A REINS law requires elected lawmakers to approve any major regulation before it can take effect, usually defined as a rule costing $100 million or more each year. If the legislature does not vote to approve it, the rule cannot be enforced. The idea is simple: billion-dollar decisions should be made by the people’s representatives, not by bureaucrats.
In Nebraska, the Platte Institute has been a champion of this approach, advancing state-level REINS Act proposals to ensure that major rules cannot take effect without legislative approval. In Florida, the James Madison Institute helped move the idea forward by making the case that elected representatives, not agencies, must make the final call on costly rules. And in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty has led the charge both in the courts and the legislature.
This year, the State Policy Network launched the inaugural Mellor Prize, awarded to teams of litigators and advocates who achieve landmark legal victories. The prize recognizes efforts that hold government accountable, defend civil society and the rule of law, and protect the most vulnerable from injustice. In partnership with the Institute for Justice, the recipient is announced at SPN’s Annual Meeting and awarded $100,000 to advance their work. This year, the New Civil Liberties Alliance received the prize for its groundbreaking advocacy before the United States Supreme Court that led to the overturning of Chevron Deference.
Together, these state-level efforts show that the movement to roll back Chevron-style deference did not begin in Washington. It was pioneered by SPN affiliates building durable reforms that restore balance between lawmakers, courts, and agencies.