If you’ve paid any attention to the conservative legal movement over the last few years, you’ve probably heard of so-called Chevron deference, a legal doctrine originating from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. In short, Chevron deference instructs courts to defer to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes that the agencies are charged with administering. While the principle is intended to acknowledge the expertise of specialized agencies, its application has sometimes led to wide discretion and expansive agency powers. 

As states consider the implications of this federal precedent on their own judicial systems, lessons from recent federal cases like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo encourage a reevaluation of how states courts interpret laws and defer to their own administrative agencies. As states like Oklahoma look to pass the REINS Act, which gives the legislature more oversight over administrative agencies, they can also give courts more guidance on how to deal with agency interpretations of the laws agencies enforce.

Understanding Chevron and Loper Bright

Last year, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, directly overturned Chevron. The plaintiffs, Loper Bright Enterprises, a group of fishermen, challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's statutory authority to require industry-funded observers on fishing vessels. The Court held that Chevron deference violated Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires courts to “decide all relevant questions of law.”

Why States Should Consider Codifying Non-Use of Chevron Deference

Even if a state's court system does not explicitly adhere to Chevron deference, establishing a statutory framework that limits court deference to agency interpretation can lead to enhanced checks and balances, a reinforcement of legislative intent, and improved accountability.

By codifying a reduced deference approach, states like Oklahoma can reinforce the judiciary's role as a meaningful check on administrative authority. When courts actively and accurately engage with statutory interpretation rather than defaulting to agency interpretation, the balance of power between branches of government is better maintained. The fear of judicial carte blanche can motivate state legislatures to draft clearer, more precise statutes. By delineating the parameters within which agencies operate, legislatures can reduce bureaucratic overreach and diminish the potential need for judicial intervention. A statutory rejection of Chevron-like deference promotes government accountability. Rather than blaming unelected bureaucrats, lawmakers are held responsible for how laws are implemented.

Practical Implications for Oklahoma

Even in those states where courts traditionally engage in thorough judicial review without explicit reliance on agency deference, formally reducing or eliminating such deference through legislation normalizes a standard of rigorous judicial scrutiny across various cases. States should follow in the footsteps of Florida, which has already legislated away from agency deference in administrative interpretations. This session, the Oklahoma Legislature has a bill that has already passed off the House floor that would limit judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Even better, the bill requires that “[i]n actions brought by or against state agencies, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court, hearing examiner, or hearing officer shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.”

Conclusion

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright could provide a watershed moment for state legislatures and courts to redefine their approach to administrative agency deference. By codifying the non-use of Chevron deference, states not only preserve a more engaged role for their judiciaries but also encourage careful legislative drafting. This approach ultimately serves to enhance the democratic ideals of accountability and separation of powers within the state, safeguarding the rights and interests of their citizens against potential administrative overreach.