Across the country, a quiet but important shift is underway in how courts review administrative agency decisions. Nineteen states have ended judicial deference to administrative agencies (including Kansas just this week), either through legislation or state court decisions. More are poised to follow. Bills are currently pending in states like Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia, reflecting a growing recognition that judicial deference undermines the rule of law and tilts the scales of justice too far in the government’s favor.
That momentum accelerated in 2024, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For four decades, Chevron required federal judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the laws it administers whenever statutory language was deemed ambiguous. Rather than weighing competing interpretations and choosing the most persuasive one, Chevron mandated that judges put a thumb on the scale for the government.
The results were predictable. Chevron led to a dramatic win rate for federal agencies—often at the expense of individuals, small businesses, and regulated entities that found themselves in the crosshairs of government enforcement. By overruling Chevron, the Court reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle: it is the judiciary’s job to say what the law is.
ButLoper Brightresolved only half the problem. While federal courts are no longer bound byChevron, many states continue to apply their own versions of judicial deference. In those states, agencies still enjoy a built-in advantage when their interpretations of state law are challenged. As a result, Americans’ rights can vary dramatically depending on whether a dispute arises under federal or state law—and depending on which state they live in.