> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Supreme Court Curbs Power of Regulatory Agencies Like FCC
- URL: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/supreme-court-curbs-power-of-regulatory-agencies-like-fcc/
- Published: 2024-06-28T16:42:08.000Z
- Updated: 2026-03-11T06:06:32.000Z
- Description: The decision could have a big impact on two pending cases involving the Federal Communications Commission, including net neutrality.
- Author: Ted Hearn
- Tags: Randy May, Eighth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Chevron Doctrine, FSF, Net Neutrality, #with-siderail, Supreme Court, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Public Knowledge, Administrative Procedure Act of 1946

WASHINGTON, June 2024 - In a closely watched case, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that federal courts do not need to defer to regulatory agencies in disputes over the correct reading of vague laws passed by Congress.

[![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/29/97/29976d9d-89ea-4c77-8c0b-0e8a0eafed35/content/images/2024/06/screen..PNG)](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/content/files/2024/06/Loper.pdf)

In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned what’s known as the *Chevron Doctrine,* a 1984 Supreme Court precedent that required the judiciary to uphold agency statutory interpretations when laws came with unclear commands or had gaps needed filling.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, *Chevron’s* presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” said Chief Justice **John Roberts**, writing for the majority. “*Chevron* gravely erred in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play.”

*Chevron* deference became controversial because it had the twin effect of denying courts their historic role of deciding the meaning of laws and enhancing the power of administrative agencies that knew they would rarely lose in court.

Joining Roberts’ opinion in [*Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451%5F7m58.pdf?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) were Justices **Clarence Thomas**, **Samuel Alito**, **Neil Gorsuch**, **Brett Kavanaugh**, and **Amy Coney Barrett.** Justice **Elena Kagan** filed a dissent joined by Justices **Sonia Sotomayor** and **Ketanji Brown Jackson** in part.

The decision could have a big impact on two pending cases involving the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC’s new [digital discrimination](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/doj-and-fcc-defend-digital-discrimination-rules-to-eighth-circuit/) rules included a disparate impact standard that can hold broadband Internet Service Providers liable for unintentional discrimination in the rollout of broadband infrastructure. The FCC's rules are now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis.

Broadband ISPs have also challenged the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules and have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stay them by July 15.

In both cases, the ISPs have said the FCC acted based on an incorrect interpretation of federal laws. Before Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, the *Chevron Doctrine* would have required courts to accept the FCC’s rules if found to be reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

Public Knowledge issued a [press release](https://publicknowledge.org/supreme-court-decision-in-loper-jeopardizes-net-neutrality-all-consumer-protections/?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) critical of the court's ruling. The progressive organization said the decision "jeopardizes Net Neutrality."

Free State Foundation President **Randolph May** issued a statement saying "the practical effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper should be to rein in overly aggressive statutory interpretations by agencies."

The court’s ruling Friday was not a constitutional holding. It did not say *Chevron* violated a constitutional clause or amendment, only that it did not conform with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946\. That means Congress could pass a law restoring the *Chevron Doctrine.* In fact, bills have been introduced on Capitol Hill to defend or abolish *Chevron* deference.

Even though the Supreme Court majority said *Chevron* deference was “fundamentally misguided,” it said its decision Friday would not impact prior cases in which agency regulations were upheld under the *Chevron Doctrine*.

“By overruling *Chevron* … the court does not call into question prior cases that relied on the *Chevron* framework,” Roberts’ opinion said.