Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, 
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 22–451.  Argued January 17, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024* 

The  Court  granted  certiorari  in  these  cases  limited  to  the  question
whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc., 467 U. S. 837, should be overruled or clarified.  Under the Chev-
ron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permis-
sible”  agency  interpretations  of  the  statutes  those  agencies  adminis-
ter—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently.  Id., at 
843.  In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s frame-
work to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners 
to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pur-
suant  to  the  Magnuson-Stevens  Act,  16  U. S. C.  §1801  et seq.,  which 
incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551 
et seq. 

Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their
independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within
its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency inter-
pretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is 
overruled.  Pp. 7–35.

(a) Article  III  of  the  Constitution  assigns  to  the  Federal  Judiciary 
the  responsibility  and  power  to  adjudicate  “Cases”  and  “Controver-
sies”—concrete  disputes  with  consequences  for  the  parties  involved. 
The Framers appreciated that the laws judges would necessarily apply
in resolving those disputes would not always be clear, but envisioned 

—————— 

*Together  with  No.  22–1219,  Relentless, Inc., et  al. v. Department  of 
Commerce, et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.