Supreme Court to Reconsider Precedent Giving Federal Agencies Benefit of Doubt

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said Monday it would reconsider a 1984 precedent some conservatives have argued grants too much power to federal regulators by directing courts to defer to an agency’s legal approach when Congress has left the statutory language ambiguous. 

The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, initially helped the Reagan administration fend off challenges from environmentalists. In more recent years, conservative legal groups have argued that federal judges should have more authority to set aside regulations. Several members of the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority have criticized the so-called Chevron deference, or suggested that judges should be reluctant to find ambiguity in federal statutes and therefore assert more authority over regulatory agencies.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said Monday it would reconsider a 1984 precedent some conservatives have argued grants too much power to federal regulators by directing courts to defer to an agency’s legal approach when Congress has left the statutory language ambiguous. 

The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, initially helped the Reagan administration fend off challenges from environmentalists. In more recent years, conservative legal groups have argued that federal judges should have more authority to set aside regulations. Several members of the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority have criticized the so-called Chevron deference, or suggested that judges should be reluctant to find ambiguity in federal statutes and therefore assert more authority over regulatory agencies.