Government's SCOTUS Brief Defends Chevron as ‘Workable,’ ‘Vitally Important’

The U.S. Supreme Court shouldn’t overrule Chevron because it's a “bedrock principle of administrative law” that provides an appropriately tailored framework for judicial review of an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers, said the government’s responding brief on the merits Friday (docket 22-1219) in Relentless v. Commerce Department.

It’s the second case before SCOTUS in which petitioners are challenging the survival of Chevron. Relentless and the other case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (docket 22-451) are scheduled to be argued in tandem Jan. 17. Friday’s brief was the government’s last opportunity in written briefs to defend Chevron before oral argument in January.

Congress is “generally presumed” under Chevron to have allocated interpretive authority to the agency to resolve a statutory ambiguity or fill a gap, “within reasonable bounds,” said the brief. Before any deference under Chevron is appropriate, a reviewing court “must exhaust” the traditional tools of statutory construction to determine if Congress has spoken to the issue, it said. Chevron comes into play only when a court determines that Congress hasn’t “clearly answered an interpretive question,” it said.

In that circumstance, it’s entirely “sensible” to presume that Congress intended its vesting of authority in the agency, and the agency’s reasonable exercise of that authority, “to be given effect by the courts,” said the government’s brief. Chevron “gives appropriate weight to the expertise, often of a scientific or technical nature, that federal agencies can bring to bear in interpreting federal statutes,” it said. Chevron also promotes “national uniformity” in the administration of federal law and greater “political accountability” for regulatory policy, it said.

When a statutory provision “is genuinely susceptible of multiple reasonable readings,” choosing among those readings often turns on a policy judgment that Congress has vested in the agency and that is properly left to the political branches, said the brief. Contrary to the petitioners’ suggestion, Chevron "is also rooted in a long tradition of judicial deference to reasonable executive interpretations," it said.

That tradition preceded the enactment in 1946 of the Administrative Procedure Act and continued after it, said the brief. “At no point in American history have federal courts applied an invariable rule of de novo resolution of all questions of law," it said.

Stare decisis principles (to stand by things decided) weigh heavily in favor of adhering to Chevron, said the brief. The doctrine for 40 years has been a “cornerstone” of administrative law reflected in thousands of judicial decisions, it said. Chevron also “has provided a stable background rule against which Congress has legislated,” it said.

Congress could alter or eliminate the Chevron “framework” at any time but has declined to do so, said the brief. Chevron therefore is entitled to the “particularly strong form” of stare decisis that SCOTUS affords to decisions that Congress could override by legislation, it said. Chevron is “workable” and remains “vitally important,” it said.

Overruling it would upset the reliance interests of regulated parties and the public “in the many agency rules and orders that have been upheld under Chevron,” said the brief. The petitioners contend that different judges have different thresholds for finding ambiguity, it said. But “reasonable jurists may disagree” under any interpretive framework, it said. Replacing Chevron with a regime of de novo review “would draw federal courts into resolving policy questions and exacerbate the potential for inconsistent results,” it said.

The doctrine “respects the separation of powers and due-process principles,” said the brief. When an Article III court applies Chevron to uphold an agency’s interpretation of a statute, the court “is exercising the judicial power while also respecting Congress’s Article I decision to vest authority in the agency to resolve an ambiguity or fill a gap within reasonable bounds,” it said.

If SCOTUS decides to revisit Chevron, it should remand for the court of appeals to apply whatever “new approach” to the doctrine that SCOTUS adopts, said the brief. But “given the force” of stare decisis and Chevron’s importance to all three branches of government, the appeals court’s judgment in the government’s favor should be affirmed, it said. The petitioners’ “fallback arguments” for reversal “are outside the scope of the question presented and lack merit,” it said.