By Jack Thompson ’27
Since 1984, the precedent set by the court case Chevron v. NRDC has controlled the balance of power in the United States. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t get through the words “administrative law” without their eyes glazing over, which puts this precedent in a uniquely undercover position. In short, the idea behind this is that whenever Congress has not spoken directly about an issue, the courts defer to the agency with jurisdiction for filling the policy (regulatory) gap. This has given government bureaucratic agencies broad authority to act as they see fit. Since the court case was decided, Chevron has become a prime conservative target. When Americans make broad, general statements about how little Congress accomplishes, a fair share of that is due to Chevron. Under the doctrine, the less Congress does, the easier it is for federal agencies to function at the direction of technocratic experts. Congress has happily abdicated the role of executing wordy policy, instead deciding to write checks with only broad guidelines for how agencies use the funds. This dynamic has given rise to the infamous “fourth branch” of government: executive agencies.
