The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine by the U.S. Supreme Court has sparked discussions about its potential impact on other longstanding legal principles, including the Feres Doctrine, which generally prevents military members from suing the government for service-related injuries. While the Chevron Doctrine’s demise primarily affects how courts interpret agency regulations, it may indirectly influence challenges to the Feres Doctrine, particularly in cases of sexual assault within the military.
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron Doctrine in a 6-3 decision, ending 40 years of judicial deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes[1][2]. The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. requires courts to exercise independent judgment in determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority rather than deferring to agency interpretations simply because a statute is ambiguous[3][4].
This landmark decision is expected to have far-reaching implications across various sectors, including healthcare, the environment, financial regulations, and technology[1]. It empowers regulated entities to challenge agency decisions more effectively and may lead to increased litigation and scrutiny of agency actions[2][4]. The overturning of Chevron is seen as a significant shift in administrative law, potentially affecting the entire “policy life cycle” from bill drafting to judicial review[5].
Sources:
- (1) Implications of Supreme Court Overturning Chevron Deference | STS
- (2) The End of Chevron Deference: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling in …
- (3) Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, limiting federal agency reach
- (4) U.S. Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine – Dentons
- (5) With Chevron Dead, It’s Time To Challenge the Feres Doctrine
The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine may indirectly impact the Feres Doctrine, which has long prevented service members from suing the military for injuries incurred during service. While Chevron primarily affected administrative law, its demise signals a shift towards increased judicial scrutiny of longstanding legal principles. This change could potentially open the door for challenges to the Feres Doctrine, particularly in cases of sexual assault within the military. Recent legal developments have already begun to question the application of Feres in such cases, with a federal court ruling that service members should be allowed to sue others in uniform for harm caused by sexual assault[1][2]. This suggests that courts may be more willing to reconsider the scope and application of the Feres Doctrine in light of the broader trend toward judicial independence in statutory interpretation.
Sources:
- (1) Court Says Military Members Can Sue Others in Uniform – FEDweek
- (2) Military sexual assault survivors should be able to sue for damages …
Military Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Recent legal developments have challenged the application of the Feres Doctrine in cases of sexual assault within the military. In 2022, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Kathryn Spletstoser v. John Hyten that sexual assault is not “incident to service,” allowing the lawsuit to proceed against a high-ranking military official[1]. This decision may set a precedent for future cases, potentially allowing military sexual assault survivors to sue not only their assailants but also the Department of Defense[2]. However, the immediate impact is currently limited to the 9th Circuit, and the Justice Department could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court for a final determination on whether service members can sue over sexual assault[2].
Sources:
- (1) Challenging the Feres Doctrine: Sexual Assault in the Military
- (2) Military sexual assault survivors should be able to sue for damages …
Judicial Interpretation Changes
The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in judicial interpretation, requiring courts to exercise independent judgment when reviewing agency actions. This change empowers judges to more freely interpret laws without deferring to agency views, potentially leading to increased litigation and inconsistent rulings across various sectors[1]. The new approach emphasizes the importance of clear and explicit delegation of authority from Congress to agencies, which may result in more detailed statutory language in future legislation[2]. This shift in interpretative methodology levels the playing field, allowing regulated entities to offer their own interpretations to resolve statutory ambiguities, which may now be given greater weight in court[2].
