October Term 2023 · Docket 22-1219

Should courts defer to agency statutory interpretations?

Relentless argues Chevron deference violates the Constitution. The government defends the framework as essential to administrative law.

Official caption
Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Relentless claims Chevron distorts the judicial process. It asserts the doctrine undermines statutory interpretation.

    The government claims Chevron has deep roots in jurisprudence. It argues the sides that brought the case lack extraordinary justification to overrule it.

    Justice Thomas questioned the line between deference and judicial duty. He referenced Skidmore deference in his inquiry.

    Chief Justice Roberts explored fact-bound interstate commerce scenarios. He asked if agency policy judgment remains pertinent there.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the Chevron doctrine. This rule lets courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. the sides that brought the case seek to overrule it. the opposing sides seek to preserve it.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Relentless wants the Court to overrule Chevron. It seeks independent judicial interpretation of statutes.

The government wants the Court to preserve Chevron. It seeks continued deference to agency expertise.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Relentless argues Chevron violates Article III. It claims judges must use independent judgment to interpret law.

The government argues Chevron is a bedrock principle. It claims overruling it requires extraordinary justification.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked how much deference conflicts with the judicial role.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if fact-bound commerce issues warrant agency policy judgment.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the balance between judicial power and agency expertise. It shapes how federal regulations gain legal force. It affects the stability of administrative law precedents.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON