The U.S. Supreme Court continues to build its legacy of jettisoning well-established principles and practices. In two companion cases—Loper-Bright v. Raimondo (Docket No. 22-451) and Relentless v. Department of Commerce (Docket No. 22-1219)—the court could overturn a doctrine that has served as a bedrock principle in administrative law for 40 years. Although the cases involve commercial fishing groups challenging a federal herring fishing regulation, the long-reaching effects of the court's decision would reach the healthcare industry, which is regulated by several federal administrative agencies.

The target doctrine is "Chevron Deference," named for the 1984 decision from which it originated—Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837. Chevron involved the Reagan administration's interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the unanimous decision, courts must employ a two-part test when considering how federal agencies interpret ambiguous statutes that they administer. First, courts must determine if the statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific issue. If so, courts must then uphold the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute.