Robert Bloink and William H. Byrnes

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts must not merely defer to agencies' interpretations of the law when those laws are ambiguous, overturning the decades-old Chevron doctrine. The court further held that courts exercise their own judgment when determining whether an agency has acted within their legal authority. In making their decision, the court found that the APA incorporates a traditional understanding where judges must exercise independent judgment when assessing the meaning of the law. The court noted that it's up to Congress to decide whether to delegate interpretive authority to agencies. The court also found that the Chevron precedent, which essentially required judicial deference to agencies' interpretation of the law, prevented judges from performing their core function of judging. While the court did specifically overrule Chevron, the opinion also stated that previously issued opinions that relied on Chevron were not called into question. 

We asked two professors and authors of ALM's Tax Facts with opposing political viewpoints to share their opinions about the Supreme Court's decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine.