U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Chevron doctrine to reshape the federal administrative state
Author
Upcoming Events
Related News
Key Takeaways
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando and its companion case Relentless v. Department of Commerce that will fundamentally reshape the balance of power between federal agencies, Congress and the Courts. The ruling overturns the Chevron doctrine, precedent established in the 1980’s that directed the courts to defer to the expertise of federal agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of a law if the statute is ambiguous or silent. Considered one of the most important rulings in federal administrative law, Chevron has been cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.
- Background: In Loper Bright, the Court considered whether the National Marine Fisheries Services, which requires herring industry vessels to have an observer on board to perform conservation oversight, could pass the cost of those observers onto the fishing companies themselves in the absence of federal funding. The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that because Congressional statute was silent on the matter, the Fisheries’ regulation would hold under the Chevron deference doctrine. The fisheries appealed the matter to the Supreme Court.
- The Court’s Ruling: The Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s decision and in so doing struck down the Chevron precedent. The ruling represents a major shift in the administrative state. Rather than deferring to agency expertise in interpreting Congressional intent, the judiciary will exercise final say over matters in which the statute is unclear or silent.
- Mixed Impact on Counties: Under Loper Bright, County governments will likely have greater opportunity to overturn burdensome regulations and influence implementation of federal policy through legal challenges. However, by giving final say to the courts, this ruling may undermine uniformity in the application of federal laws and instead lead to significant regional variation. Federal lawmakers may also shift their approach to the legislative process, opting for far greater specificity to reduce the potential for judicial interference.
Alongside Loper Bright, the Court’s 6-3 decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System significantly expands the time frame for legal challenges to federal agency rulemaking, further exposing federal regulators to increased litigation. Taken together, the two rulings will have lasting repercussions for the federal administrative state.
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
NACo Legal Advocacy: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
As one of the largest employers in the country, counties have a significant interest in cases like Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio) that could expand county liabilities as employers.
NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Buffalo et al. v. Kia/Hyundai
The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards
Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.
NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.
NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie
Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Bondi v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford
Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees.
NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera
EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Federal Communications Commission, et al v. Consumers' Research, et al
Federal Communications Commission, et al v. Consumers’ Research, et al. (FCC v. Consumers’ Research) could jeopardize what is known as the Universal Service Fund (USF). Through the USF, the FCC has provided billions of dollars to local governments and our residents, helping provide essential telecommunications and broadband services to unserved and underserved communities. FCC v. Consumers’ Research challenges the FCC’s legal authority behind the USF, putting multiple programs essential to equitable broadband deployment at risk.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
EPA releases proposal to repeal 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding
On July 29, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding. Following the announcement from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a supporting report—A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.
U.S. House of Representatives introduce Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act
On July 25, U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.-04) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine-02) introduced the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act. This bipartisan bill would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to clarify ambiguity and streamline the permitting process.
NACo sends letter to congressional appropriations committees urging federal investments in county government activities
On July 9, NACo sent a letter to leaders of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate Appropriations Committees urging them to adequately fund key federal programs of importance to counties in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 discretionary appropriations bills.
U.S. Congress passes reconciliation bill: What it means for counties
On July 3, the U.S. Congress passed sweeping budget reconciliation legislation.
County officials voice concern for SNAP, Medicaid amid reconciliation vote
Ahead of the Senate and House's budget reconcilliation votes, county officials from five states traveled to Capitol Hill June 24, to advocate against its provisions related to the social safety net programs.
U.S. Senate passes amended reconciliation bill text: What it means for counties
On July 1, the U.S. Senate narrowly passed their version of sweeping budget reconciliation legislation.
Inside Washington: County Impacts from the White House & Congress, August 21
Join NACo’s Government Affairs team for week six of a biweekly series on key developments from the White House and Congress. Discussions will focus on policies and actions that directly impact counties — from federal funding and regulatory changes to intergovernmental partnerships. Tune in for an inside look at how these evolving federal dynamics may shape county priorities, responsibilities and operations.
Understanding the Homelessness Executive Order: Federal Shifts, County Impacts and Next Steps
Join NACo on Tuesday, August 26 at 3:00 p.m. ET for a timely webinar outlining major changes to federal funding, grant conditions, and policy priorities that directly affect county homelessness programs, behavioral health systems and enforcement strategies.
2025 Federal-State Policy Exchange
The National Council of County Association Executives (NCCAE) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) will host the Federal-State Policy Exchange (formerly, the Knowledge Management Forum), August 27-29 in Cook County (Chicago), Ill.
Inside Washington: County Impacts from the White House & Congress, September 4
Join NACo’s Government Affairs team for week seven of a biweekly series on key developments from the White House and Congress. Discussions will focus on policies and actions that directly impact counties — from federal funding and regulatory changes to intergovernmental partnerships. Tune in for an inside look at how these evolving federal dynamics may shape county priorities, responsibilities and operations.
Robert's Rules 102: Advancing Your Meeting Mastery for Effective Governance
Learn to minimize disruptions, establish proper procedures and apply Robert's Rules to real-life parliamentary examples.
Inside Washington: County Impacts from the White House & Congress, September 18
Join NACo’s Government Affairs team for week eight of a biweekly series on key developments from the White House and Congress. Discussions will focus on policies and actions that directly impact counties — from federal funding and regulatory changes to intergovernmental partnerships. Tune in for an inside look at how these evolving federal dynamics may shape county priorities, responsibilities and operations.