What will happen to Federal regulations once Chevron is eliminated?

Question

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/chevron-deference-faces-existential-test/). It seems the Court is willing to overturn Chevron. My question is what will happen to Federal regulations promulgated by the agencies? Aren't the regulations interpretations of the statutes by the agencies? Will the agencies stop using the federal regulations in adjudications or enforcement? I understand that the regulations also cover explicit law making delegations by Congress. I think that should remain but will the interpretations of the statues not relied upon?

Answer 1

Overturning Chevron would just mean that courts will not defer to agency interpretations of ambiguity in their enabling statutes.

In such a world, agencies can still promulgate regulations (and take other actions) as delegated. First, many delegations of rule-making authority are uncontentious. As the Chief Justice wrote in the eventual decision:

That is not to say that Congress cannot or does not confer discretionary authority on agencies. Congress may do so, subject to constitutional limits, and it often has.

However, without Chevron deference, when an agency makes regulations (or does other things) that hinge on ambiguous delegation of rule-making authority, courts will no longer defer to the agency's interpretation.

Overturning Chevron would allow for greater judicial scrutiny/intervention into the rule-making actions of agencies. Courts will require that agencies operate under a correct (as determined by the court) understanding of the enabling statute.

Answer 2

will the interpretations of the statues not [be] relied upon?

A statutory interpretation promulgated by regulation remains binding on the officers and employees subject to that regulation until a court rules that the interpretation is invalid. That is true before and after Chevron was overruled.

As Jen notes in her answer, Chevron limited the way courts could approach regulatory interpretations of statute law, but courts could always overrule these interpretations (if they were obviously unconstitutional, for example). On the other hand, no court can say anything about the executive's interpretation of a statute unless someone who has standing brings an action to challenge the interpretation. At these extreme ends of the spectrum, nothing has changed.