Federal agencies no longer get the last word on what a statute means
In Loper Bright, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference. Days later, Corner Post held that a business's time to challenge a federal rule runs from when the rule first harms it.
Reviewed by Laurence S. Bezinover · Published
What changed
For 40 years, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court ended that practice: courts must now decide for themselves the best reading of the statute, though an agency's views can still persuade. Earlier decisions upholding rules under the old approach are not automatically reopened.
In Corner Post v. Board of Governors (July 1, 2024), the Court held that the six-year deadline to challenge a federal rule starts when the rule injures the plaintiff, not when it was issued, so a newer business can challenge an older regulation.
Who it affects
Businesses regulated by federal agencies, including in labor, banking and payments, health care, telecommunications, and the environment.
Questions to raise with counsel
- Which federal rules cost our business the most, now that the agency's interpretation no longer wins automatically?
- If our business was formed recently, could a challenge to an older rule still be timely?
- How should we plan compliance while litigation over federal rules increases?
This briefing is general information about California law, not legal advice for your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.