Law360 has published an article from Kelley Drye’s Wayne D’Angelo and Zachary Lee analyzing the oral argument heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on a pair of lawsuits that stand to unravel the long-standing Chevron doctrine requiring courts to give deference to agencies that “reasonably” interpret ambiguous statutory text. The justices’ inquiries focused on what constitutes an ambiguity under Chevron’s first step; what constitutes a reasonable agency interpretation of a statute as it relates to a legal policy question under Chevron’s second step; and what review framework would replace Chevron if the doctrine is abolished.

Read the full article here.

Where Justices Stand On Chevron Doctrine Post-Argument