Corporate Services, Inc.
208 Kishwaukee St. · Rockford, IL 61104
(p) (815) 962-8367 · (f) (815) 962-0940
www.corpserv.com


U.S. Supreme Court Rolls Back 'Chevron Deference'

Posted:

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, meaning judges cannot defer to agencies — opening more challenges to regulations.

The Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States

Chevron often required courts to defer to federal agencies when those agencies were interpreting statutes they administer. Because of today's decision, courts will no longer defer. Instead, they will give statutes their "best" interpretation. That means agencies — including labor and employment agencies — will have less leeway to write broad rules. They will instead have to write rules that hew more closely to statutory language. They may also have to defend some existing rules against closer scrutiny in court. And that closer scrutiny could upset some recently adopted or proposed rules, such as rules on overtime, safety inspections, and independent contracting.

What is Chevron deference?

Chevron deference is a rule about who gets to decide what a statute means. Historically, that decision was made by courts. Decisions going back to the early nineteenth century (Marbury v. Madison) explained that it was courts' job to interpret the law:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

But in Chevron the Court held that judges should sometimes defer to executive agencies. Agencies are often assigned by Congress to administer statutes. And those statutes are not always clear. So agencies often specify and expand on the statutory text through formal interpretations in the form of regulations. Chevron held that courts should accept those interpretations when (a) the statute is ambiguous, and (b) the agency's interpretation is reasonable.

What did the Court decide today?

The Court has now rejected that approach. In overruling Chevron, the Court explained that judges cannot defer to agencies on questions of interpreting law. Judges can consider agency expertise, practice, and consistency. They can also respect agency policy decisions when an agency has been given explicit authority to make policy. But they cannot give agency interpretations of law binding legal effect. Instead, they must exercise their independent judgment and give statutes their "best" interpretation.

How does this decision affect labor and employment law?

This approach will affect how agencies make policy — including labor and employment agencies. Most federal labor and employment agencies rely on some form of deference. For example, the Department of Labor (DOL) often uses deference principles to write overtime rules (Langston v. Lookout Mountain Community Services) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) relies on deference (Chao v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission) when it makes rules under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. And the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) relies on deference when it writes rules and decides cases under the National Labor Relations Act in NLRB v. Hearst Publications.

These agencies will now face a new landscape in federal court. If the agencies are challenged by private people or companies about the meaning of a statute, they can no longer expect to start the case with a leg up. Instead, they will be on equal footing with the challengers. The question will no longer be whether the agency's position is reasonable. Instead, the question will be which side's interpretation of the statute is the "best" one.

What should employers watch for now?

This new landscape could affect ongoing litigation. The DOL is already defending a new rule setting new minimum salaries for the FLSA's "white collar" exemptions. It is also defending a prevailing-wage rule under the Davis-Bacon Act and an FLSA rule defining independent contractors. Similarly, the NLRB is defending a rule defining "joint employers." And OSHA is defending a rule that allows union representatives to accompany OSHA inspectors — even in non-union workplaces. In all these cases, the agencies are defending their rules with some form of deference. But now, they may have to change their litigation strategy.

Going forward, agencies may be discouraged from writing broad rules — that is, rules that stretch the statute's plain language. Rules will now be easier to challenge, especially when they stray far from the statutory text. So agencies might have to write narrower rules and look for other ways to advance their policy positions. For example, they might file more lawsuits to establish their interpretations in court. And they may look for friendlier venues to file those lawsuits to improve their chances. In short, they may regulate more modestly and litigate more strategically.

This decision was far from the only one affecting labor and employment law. The Court's 2024 docket was stocked with decisions (pdf) that facially involved administrative law, but which could spill over into labor and employment law.

Posted In: Department of Labor (DOL); Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); U.S. Supreme Court

Want to know more? Read the full article by at Littler Mendelson

More News from Corporate Services, Inc.

Good-Faith Belief Is Not Always Enough

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court poked holes in what many considered an infallible employer defense to employee discrimination claims known as the "good-faith belief" doctrine.more

Texas District Court Narrowly Stays and Enjoins FTC's Non-Compete Rule

On July 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a limited stay and preliminary injunction of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final rule that would render almost all non-compete agreements, with very limited exceptions, unenforceable (commonly referred to as the "Non-Compete Rule").more

Texas District Court Narrowly Enjoins White-Collar Overtime Regulations

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a limited injunction of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) new regulations increasing the minimum salary that certain executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) employees must be paid to qualify for the so-called "white-collar" exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). more