"The History of the Chevron Doctrine"--things you may not have known...

Two cases regarding the so-called "Chevron Doctrine", Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, were argued this week at the Supreme Court. 

This very short article helps explain the issues in the original case that established the doctrine.

In short, when a statute's (law) verbiage comes into question, a court uses a "2-step" process to decide the case:

The "two-step" refers to the two stages of the review process:

1. Determine whether Congress expressed clear intent on the specific issue at hand in the statute. If it did, the court simply applies that meaning. If it’s not clear, go on to Step 2.
2. If the statute is ambiguous, then the court defers to the agency's interpretation if it is "based on a permissible construction of the statute." This is the "Chevron deference" stage.

 Source: FindLaw

One side says the doctrine is necessary so government agencies, that employ professionals with expertise Congress does not have, can use existing statutory language to respond to challenges that are not explicit (but implied or through precedent) in the statute. 

The other side says it gives government agencies too much power to interpret statutes beyond what is in the text of those statutes. The meanings of statutes should be interpreted by the judicial branch, not "unelected bureaucrats" or the Executive branch.