The "Chevron Doctrine" is Overturned. What It Means For Wine Lawsuits

Investigating the impact of an important recent Supreme Court case on wine

I have now been asked three times variations on the following question:

Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper v Raimondo that overturned the “Chevron Doctrine” impact the way the courts will evaluate the various lawsuits challenging the states’ discriminatory wine shipping laws?

It’s a good question. Here’s my take.

The “Chevron Doctrine” was a principle used by federal courts to evaluate claims that a federal regulation is unconstitutional. The doctrine was laid out in a 1984 Supreme Court case titled Chevron v National Resources Defense Council. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that when a Congressional law or statute is ambiguous or unclear, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.

Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) often institute regulations that impact individuals and businesses. The agencies enact these regulations based on grants of power given to them in laws passed by Congress. However, sometimes the power to enact particular regulations is not specifically laid out in the laws passed by Congress. Sometimes Congress is ambiguous in how laws are to be carried out.

For example, at issue in the recent Loper case was a regulation created by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). That agency required commercial herring fishermen to pay up to $700 per day for observers to be on board their ships to collect data about their catches and monitor overfishing. This fee was never laid out in any Congressional law. The fishermen sued, claiming the National Marine Fisheries Services had overstepped their authority and had no right or power to apply this fee.

Normally, It is the federal courts’ job to assess this claim; to determine if the agency acted according to its powers or if the fisherman were improperly assessed this fee. In other words, the courts are responsible for interpreting the law that gives the federal agency its power and determines if the agency has overstepped its authority or not.