By Timothy M. Ravich
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, dismantling the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Under Chevron, courts were required to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes that they administered, effectively granting agencies broad interpretive power over regulatory matters. By overturning this precedent, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance of power, requiring courts to independently interpret statutes rather than automatically deferring to agency expertise. This shift could have significant implications for heavily regulated industries such as aviation, where bodies like the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) play a pivotal role in crafting and enforcing complex rules.
The elimination of Chevron deference means greater judicial scrutiny of agency regulations, potentially reshaping how the FAA and other regulatory bodies develop, implement and defend their rules. Agencies previously wielded considerable authority, often acting as rule-makers and interpreters of ambiguous statutory language, sometimes stretching their mandates in ways that Congress may not have envisioned. Now, with Loper Bright Enterprises, courts will take a more active role in determining the validity and scope of agency interpretations, which could lead to an increase in legal challenges against agency rules and new questions about regulatory authority.
A notable example of the excesses of agency power under Chevron involved the regulation of drones. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down an FAA rule requiring recreational drone users to register their devices. The case, Taylor v. Huerta, centered on a 2012 law that explicitly prohibited the FAA from creating rules for model aircraft. Despite this prohibition, the FAA argued that its registration rule was merely a continuation of its long-standing practice of registering manned aircraft, intended to promote safety by creating “a culture of accountability” among drone operators. The court, however, rejected this argument. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the opinion, emphasized the FAA’s overreach by stating, “You’re just making stuff up… that’s not what the statute says.” He and the court found the FAA’s rule to be an attempt at regulatory overreach that violated clear congressional intent. (Judge Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Kavanaugh’s pointed remarks underscored the judiciary’s critical role in reining in agency overreach and interpreting statutes in accordance with congressional directives. The unanimous Taylor court concluded that “Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler,” ruling that the FAA’s registration rule was unlawful because it contravened Congress’s explicit prohibition against regulating model aircraft. (Registration of drones is required by law post-Taylor.)
Fast forward to 2024, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises now requires courts to evaluate agency interpretations without automatically deferring to their expertise. While agencies like the FAA may (and do) still bring subject-matter knowledge and expertise to bear in court, they no longer benefit from a presumption of correctness. This shift may lead to more challenges to agency actions, slow rulemaking processes and demand stronger legal justifications for regulatory decisions. For the aviation industry, this new era of judicial oversight offers both challenges and opportunities as stakeholders navigate a more circumspect regulatory environment with greater judicial scrutiny.
About Timothy M. Ravich
Timothy M. Ravich concentrates his practice in the areas of aviation, product and general civil litigation. Recognized as one of only 50 lawyers qualified as a Board-Certified Expert in the area of aviation law, Tim specializes in transactional and regulatory matters related to the ownership, maintenance and utilization of aircraft, airports and airspace. Click here to read Tim's full attorney biography.