In the Chevron case, several environmental organizations challenged the validity of an Environmental Protection Agency regulation made pursuant to the Clean Air Act, claiming that the regulation was inconsistent with the statute. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a specific statement of congressional intent, courts should determine whether the regulation in question was based on a permissible construction of the statute. In this case, the Court found no clear evidence of congressional intent and ruled that the EPA had interpreted the Clean Air Act in a reasonable manner with respect to the particular issue at hand. The case had important precedential value regarding the level of deference federal courts were required to grant federal agencies when evaluating those agencies’ interpretations of relevant statutory law. The Supreme Court overturned Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), holding that the Administrative Procedure Act required courts to exercise independent judgment as to whether agencies had acted within their statutory authority.
See also: