This is the Kator Daily Podcast for Tuesday, July 2nd, 2024. I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court's recent terms have handed down major changes to administrative law, but none bigger

than the end of what's known as the Chevron doctrine, whereby courts are often duty-bound to simply

defer to agency interpretations of unclear statutes that grant those

same agencies regulatory power.

Cato's Tommy Berry details what the end of Chevron means and what it doesn't mean for

regulatory agencies Congress and courts going forward.

For those who wanted a little light reading after the debate,

and we're recording this, of course, the day

after the first presidential debate

between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. People could relax, kick back a little bit with the Supreme Court's decision

on what's known as the Chevron doctrine, and this was two cases in which the Chevron

doctrine was overturned. Let's understand clearly what the Chevron

doctrine is and what it is not.

So the Chevron doctrine originates from a 1984 case in the Supreme Court called Chevron

versus NRDC.

It wasn't a very high profile case. It was about a Reagan administration

interpretation of a statute. Essentially when do polluters have to use new more

expensive but cleaner technology, dispute between the Reagan

administration and various environmental groups. The DC Circuit had ruled

against the Reagan administration and the Supreme Court reversed them and the Supreme Court included language in its opinion

saying that so long as the executive branch's interpretation of a statute is permissible,

...