In June 2024, a landmark Supreme Court decision — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — returned regulatory authority to legislators and rolled back a 40-year-old legal doctrine that transformed the lawmaking landscape.  

The doctrine, created in 1984 by the Supreme Court in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, required federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of “ambiguous” federal law, including in cases where an agency argued Congress implied delegated regulatory authority.  

As Stand Together has previously explained: 

In practice, this meant a federal agency sought to force fishermen to pay out of their own pockets for at-sea monitors required by law. It also meant agencies could come up with astonishingly arbitrary tests for regulation and hold businesses in legal limbo. These agencies could, in effect, write their own understanding of the laws because lawmakers didn’t write laws with precision. Now, with Chevron reversed, that will need to change. 

However, the opportunity for change isn’t just at the federal level. Chevron-type deference is still at play in roughly half of the states, with courts deferring to executive agencies when laws are ambiguous.  

“This is problematic for several reasons: First, state agencies may not experience legitimate critique and challenge,” explained Tony Woodlief, senior executive vice president at State Policy Network and senior fellow for SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism. “People with significant expertise in legal disputes shouldn’t be downgraded simply because they don’t happen to work for a state agency. Second, it invites undue federal influence because state agencies often rely on federal guidance to inform their understanding of what is lawful and beneficial.” 

States can remove such deference — seven states have passed constitutional amendments or legislation that forbid state agencies from making appeals to deference or instruct state judges not to afford deference to agency interpretations. 

Additionally, much like at the federal level, state legislatures need support for writing more precise laws.  

“For state lawmakers to uphold their duties as representatives of the people, they’ll need the resources and talent to understand law and policy, along with institutional rules and practices that facilitate effective oversight,” Woodlief said. “Otherwise, they’ll simply be trading fiat decision-making by federal officials for fiat decision-making by state officials.”  

State agencies need to be equipped with the proper functions to review their own state agencies’ decisions — and stay on guard for federal overreach in their states. 

“As federal agencies find their power to issue regulations curtailed, they’ll have more incentive to issue guidance which functions as rulemaking,” Woodlief said. “This is illegal, but often the regulated parties subjected to guidance either don’t understand that it isn’t binding or they believe that failure to comply will result in federal retaliation.” 

That’s why the Center for Practical Federalism has been developing a tracker to flag guidance it believes may constitute illegal rulemaking. The group is networking with state and local officials to ensure they are aware of the tool, equipped to see guidance issued to their state and community agencies, and positioned to scrutinize and challenge any guidance they believe constitutes illegal rulemaking.  

Each year, SPN also releases a Federalism Scorecard — a report that ranks all 50 states on their ability to resist federal overreach. The scorecard highlights states that empower elected officials over unelected bureaucrats, offering a roadmap for protecting self-governance and defending against unconstitutional federal encroachment.   

“We have been surprised to discover how many states, even those controlled by officials who espouse support for federalism and self-governance, that don’t even have standing oversight committees in their legislatures with clear subpoena powers,” Woodlief said.  

The Center for Practical Federalism also partners with state think tanks and educates elected officials on reforms that provide specific ways for states to curb federal influence.   

“As an example, we’re encouraging states to build mechanisms of visibility/accountability,” Woodlief said. “This means recommending legislatures both put themselves in positions to be notified of federal grant applications and urging them to require more accurate cost accounting.” 

Adapting to a new world without the Chevron doctrine will require a multipronged approach like the one SPN is executing. But the organization can’t do it alone.  

“We see lots of opportunities for people with administrative-state expertise and experience to apply their analytical and legal talents, and especially to educate, encourage, and strategize alongside state and local leaders who are ready to champion federalism but who need support,” Woodlief noted.  

And if these efforts are effective? 

“State legislatures will be better equipped to oversee their state agencies and obstruct undue federal intrusion into state and community affairs,” said Woodlief. “They’ll also face greater pressure to use these powers in defense of their communities and end a decades-long assumption that anything Washington wants, Washington gets.” 

The State Policy Network is supported by Stand Together Trust, which provides funding and strategic capabilities to innovators, scholars, and social entrepreneurs to develop new and better ways to tackle America’s biggest problems. 

Learn more about Stand Together’s efforts to defend America’s constitutionally limited government, and explore ways you can partner with us.