The implications of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruling Chevron deference are becoming clearer. Our Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources Group examines how the Eighth Circuit’s Zimmer decision paves the way for more regulatory challenges.
- Agencies must provide stronger legal justifications for their decisions, especially when statutory language is unclear
- Entities regulated by agencies may have new opportunities to challenge rules lacking explicit congressional delegation
- Judicial review will likely become more rigorous, especially when statutory language is vague or broad
In Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri Inc. v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit became one of the first appellate courts to apply and refine application of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine. The Zimmer decision provides a practical example of the significant shift in how courts review agency interpretations of law and carries important implications for environmental law and entities subject to environmental regulation.
What Was Chevron Deference?
For four decades, the Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies broad latitude to interpret ambiguous statutes. If a law was unclear, courts would defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was “reasonable,” even if the court might have interpreted the statute differently. This framework allowed agencies to shape regulatory policy with limited judicial interference.
What Did Loper Bright Change?
In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise their own independent judgment in interpreting statutes. Agencies no longer receive automatic deference simply because a statute is ambiguous. Courts may still consider agency expertise, but only as persuasive authority, not as binding. As the Zimmer court put it:
Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority and need not defer to an agency interpretation of the law. … It is our responsibility as the reviewing court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.
What Does the Zimmer Case Tell Us?
Zimmer applied the Loper Bright standard in the context of the FCC’s quadrennial review of media ownership rules, overturning certain agency interpretations and clarifying how courts should approach agency discretion post-Chevron.
Affirming independent judicial review
Zimmer reiterates that courts, not agencies, have the final say on statutory interpretation, even in technical or complex regulatory areas.
Recognizing delegated agency discretion
Significantly, Zimmer clarifies that Loper Bright does not eliminate all agency discretion. Instead, it holds that when Congress has delegated policymaking authority, such as by requiring agencies to create rules in the “public interest,” courts still recognize that discretion but will review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for reasonableness.
Zimmer distinguishes between:
- Legal Interpretation. Courts decide what the law means.
- Policy Discretion. Agencies decide how to apply the law within delegated bounds.
In Zimmer, the court found that defining “competition” was a legal question, but determining how much competition is required was a policy judgment appropriately left to the agency once delegated.
Applying “arbitrary and capricious” review
When discretion exists, Zimmer applies the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Under that standard, courts ensure the agency’s decision is reasonable and reasonably explained but do not substitute their own policy views.
Implications for Environmental Law
Environmental statutes often contain broad delegations of authority such as “protecting public health” or “ensuring environmental safety.” Zimmer confirms that:
- Courts will now independently interpret environmental statutes, rather than deferring to the Environmental Protection Agency’s or other agencies’ interpretations.
- Agencies must justify their interpretations with persuasive reasoning and evidence.
- If Congress has clearly delegated discretion, agencies retain flexibility but must meet the APA standard for review.
Loper Bright, Zimmer, and any cases that follow may affect:
- Rulemaking. Agencies may face more litigation challenging the legal basis of environmental rules.
- Permitting and Enforcement. Courts may scrutinize agency interpretations of statutory terms like “significant impact” or “best available technology.”
- Climate and ESG Policy. Agencies relying on broad statutory mandates (e.g., Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act) may need to more clearly demonstrate congressional authorization.
Takeaways
- Environmental organizations should prepare for more rigorous judicial review of agency rules and guidance.
- Regulated entities may find new opportunities to challenge agency interpretations that lack clear statutory support or delegation.
- Agencies must bolster the legal and evidentiary foundation of their decisions, especially when statutory language is ambiguous.
Zimmer confirms that Loper Bright is not just a theoretical shift – it’s already reshaping how courts evaluate agency authority. Following Loper Bright, courts are empowered to more actively scrutinize agency interpretations of statutes and potentially overturn statutory interpretations that were previously shielded by deference.
[View source.]
