쉐브론 원칙의 폐기와 전망 — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 판결을 중심으로 —

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court formally overruled the Chevron doctrine, a foundational principle of administrative law that had governed judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations for the past four decades. This decision marks a paradigmatic shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, fundamentally altering the framework for judicial review, regulatory stability, and the allocation of policymaking authority. First, the repeal of Chevron necessitates a reassessment of judicial deference standards. With Chevron deference no longer applicable, courts are expected to adopt Skidmore deference as a primary interpretative framework, wherein the persuasiveness of an agency’s reasoning rather than its mere existence determines the level of deference afforded. Additionally, the expanded application of the Major Questions Doctrine is likely to curtail administrative discretion, granting the judiciary greater control over statutory interpretation. Second, the elimination of Chevron deference is anticipated to increase regulatory uncertainty. Previously, administrative agencies exercised considerable latitude in construing ambiguous statutes, thereby enabling responsive and adaptive policymaking. However, the Court’s decision restricts agencies' interpretative flexibility, potentially impeding regulatory responsiveness in rapidly evolving fields such as environmental law, financial regulation, and emerging technologies. Consequently, regulatory predictability may be undermined, leading to increased litigation and a higher burden on the judiciary to resolve statutory ambiguities. Third, the decision fundamentally reconfigures the division of policymaking authority between the executive and judicial branches. Under Chevron, courts traditionally deferred to agencies on matters within their technical and policy expertise. With its repeal, however, judicial supremacy in statutory interpretation is reinstated, diminishing the role of administrative agencies in shaping substantive policy. This shift may necessitate greater legislative precision to mitigate the risk of judicial encroachment into policymaking, particularly in areas requiring specialized expertise and technical acumen. In sum, the overruling of Chevron heralds a transformative moment in U.S. administrative law and regulatory governance. While proponents of the decision emphasize judicial independence and fidelity to statutory text, critics caution that it undermines regulatory coherence and erodes the functional capacities of administrative agencies. Moving forward, sustained discourse is required to delineate the proper scope of judicial review, regulatory authority, and the balance of power among the three branches of government. Furthermore, as administrative agencies possess both democratic accountability through the executive branch and the requisite expertise to address complex policy matters, it remains imperative to preserve their role in effectuating legislative intent within the constitutional framework.