Why Is SCOTUS Putting Off Chevron Deference Cases?

Despite making SCOTUSblog’s “Petitions We’re Watching” on multiple occasions this term, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to act on three different cert petitions in which NCLA asks to reconsider Chevron deference.

In Aposhian v. Garland and Gun Owners of America v. Garland, NCLA is asking the high court to address the discord in lower courts regarding the application of Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations that criminalize otherwise lawful conduct. In Buffington v. McDonough, NCLA challenged a Department of Veterans Affairs interpretation of that would capriciously deny disability payments to a veteran who served his country honorably for almost a decade. The lower courts determined that the applicable statute was ambiguous and granted Chevron deference to VA’s interpretation, despite a well-established interpretive norm mandating that ambiguous veterans’ benefits statutes are to be interpreted in favor of the veteran.

Chevron deference requires judges to ignore their own best judgment in favor of government agencies.

Any one of these cases would have been a strong vehicle for SCOTUS to make clear that Chevron deference is wrong and should be abandoned. But that didn't happen. SCOTUS didn't deny cert, but it didn't grant cert, either. Instead, it held these petitions over until the next term.
What does this mean for the future of Chevron deference?

Our expert panelists, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Rich Samp and renowned appellate litigators Roman Martinez from Latham & Watkins and John Tienken from Cooper & Kirk, discuss the curious fate of Chevron deference pending these three cert petitions.