The Chevron Doctrine’s almost 40-year reign has come to an end following a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued last month in the consolidated cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.1 The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires judges to use their independent judgment in interpreting ambiguous statutes and considering administrative actions, rather than continuing to defer to federal agencies, which had expansive regulatory authority under Chevron. This decision will significantly impact the federal regulatory landscape, including consumer products regulation and litigation.
The Chevron and Loper Bright Decisions
The Chevron Doctrine, established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,2 required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes that were within their regulatory authority, since they presumably had expertise and specialized knowledge regarding the relevant statute.3
The recent Loper Bright decision, however, overruled this framework. Under Loper Bright, federal courts are now required to independently determine the meaning of ambiguous statutes and their application to administrative actions. Chief Justice Roberts explained that the APA requires the judiciary to use its own judgment to decide legal questions when reviewing agency actions, stating, “agency interpretations of statutes – like agency interpretations of the Constitution – are not entitled to deference.”4
Consequently, without Chevron deference, federal regulations could be more likely to be struck down, as courts will critically assess the agency’s interpretation of statutes without presuming reasonableness. This change places a greater burden on agencies to ensure their regulations can withstand judicial scrutiny based on statutory interpretation and evidence of reasonableness. Courts will independently evaluate the validity of the agencies’ interpretations, making it less likely that regulations will be upheld if they do not have a clear statutory basis and strong justification.
Impact on Consumer Products Cases
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron has significant implications for consumer products regulation and litigation. For example, federal agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission have issued numerous regulations to ensure product safety. Absent Chevron deference, such regulations may now face increased judicial scrutiny, which will ultimately impact how product liability cases involving the regulations are adjudicated.5 For example, because courts will no longer automatically defer to the agency’s expertise on legal questions related to the regulations, existing safety standards and regulatory measures that have been in place for years may be re-evaluated. The decision also increases the likelihood of litigation challenging the validity of current regulations altogether, especially from industries or parties affected by stringent safety requirements.6
Indeed, the overturing of Chevron could jeopardize pending and future safety regulations covering a wide range of consumer products, from automobiles and home products to electric bikes and baby goods.7 Consumer advocates have expressed concerns that the Loper Bright decision may impact the process for agencies to protect consumers from risks associated with products.8 For example, regulations designed to enhance the safety of items like bike helmets and smoke detectors might face additional obstacles and delays.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron introduces significant uncertainty for consumer product regulations, thereby impacting litigation involving such regulations and products. Businesses should closely monitor legal developments and reassess compliance strategies to navigate this evolving regulatory environment effectively. This change will likely result in increased litigation related to consumer products, particularly challenges to existing regulations and disputes over the interpretation of regulatory statutes. We can expect litigation focusing on the validity of agency regulations, the scope of regulatory authority, and the specific requirements imposed on businesses to ensure product safety.
For further information or specific legal advice, please contact Bob Alpert, Jeff Douglass, or Caroline Suydam at Morris, Manning & Martin.
