Congress moves to kill Chevron deference, handing courts power over agency rules

What it does

This bill amends the Administrative Procedure Act to require federal courts to review agency interpretations of law from scratch ('de novo') rather than deferring to agency expertise under the Chevron doctrine. It strips away the current judicial deference standard and mandates that courts independently decide all questions of law, including how agencies interpret statutes and regulations, and makes this standard apply to all agency actions unless a law explicitly exempts itself by name.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to dismantle Chevron deference—a foundational doctrine that has governed judicial review of agency action for 40 years. It does this by amending § 706 of the APA to mandate de novo review and strip away the current language that permits courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations.

What the text implies

• Eliminates Chevron deference without naming it, making the bill's true target opaque to non-expert readers; the title 'Separation of Powers Restoration' does not signal the specific doctrine being overturned.
• The 'notwithstanding' clause and exemption-by-explicit-reference language create a new statutory carve-out mechanism: any future law that wants to preserve deference must name this section explicitly, raising the bar for legislative intent and potentially invalidating older statutes that did not anticipate this requirement.
• De novo review of agency interpretations of constitutional provisions may trigger constitutional challenges to agency action that were previously foreclosed by deference, expanding litigation risk for regulatory agencies and potentially destabilizing decades of settled administrative law.
• Industries heavily regulated by expert agencies (environmental, financial, pharmaceutical, labor) face increased litigation and regulatory uncertainty; competitors and challengers can now litigate agency interpretations in court without deference barriers, potentially fragmenting national standards.
• The bill does not address how courts will handle technical or scientific questions where agency expertise is deep; de novo review may force generalist judges to second-guess specialized agency judgment on matters like air quality standards or drug safety.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain direct court access to challenge agency rules without deference barriers, potentially enabling faster legal challenges and court-driven policy shifts. However, the loss of agency expertise in statutory interpretation may increase litigation costs, delay regulatory action on public health and safety, and create inconsistent rules across circuits—harming citizens who depend on stable, expert-driven regulation.

Who stands to gain

• litigation-heavy industries (energy, finance, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications)
• law firms specializing in administrative law and regulatory challenges
• trade associations and business groups that challenge agency rules
• industries seeking to overturn or weaken existing agency regulations

Named in the bill

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (implicit target), Federal courts, Federal agencies (EPA, FDA, OSHA, SEC, FCC, etc.), House Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

3 cosponsors: 3 Republicans.

• Feb 26, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 26, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• May 21, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• May 21, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.