To be sure, Loper Bright v. Raimondo is a seminal decision that has had a cascading effect on judicial decisionmaking at all levels. Since the ruling of the Court last summer, the decision has begun to cement itself as a piece of foundational case law, being heavily cited by the Supreme Court and federal circuit courts alike. Nonetheless, the likelihood of the downfall of Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 case struck down by Loper Bright, has been lurking on court walls for years. As noted by Chief Justice Roberts in the new decision, the Court had not cited the Chevron precedent since 2016. Scholars and justices alike had noticed the shift by the Court to move away from the deferential standard of the 1984 case. Professor Bob Percival had characterized Chevron as a “dead man walking” prior to the Loper Bright decision, while Justice Gorsuch referred to the Loper Bright holding as placing a “tombstone” on the long dead 1984 precedent.

Although Chevron is dead, its shadow will still influence decisions, and some forms of deference are still emerging. First, Justice Kavanaugh, in the recent unanimous opinion for Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (2025), made it clear that “when determining whether an agency’s [environmental impact statement] complied with NEPA, a court should afford substantial deference to the agency.” Second, agencies may still be entitled to Skidmoredeference, named for the 1944 decision that highlights the persuasiveness of an agency’s reasoning. The Loper Bright majority favorably cited Skidmore eight times in its opinion. Since Loper Bright, the 80-year-old holding has been used in finding for the government in a number of cases. As examples, here are three 2024 decisions from federal courts around the country: Harding v. Steak N Shake, Inc.; Green v. Perry’s Restaurants Ltd.; Lopez v. Garland.

What is new after the advent of Loper Bright is the Court signaling that it is open to expertise from any relevant source, not just the opinion of expert agencies. Amicus briefs, therefore, can be important. For instance, in the recent decision for City & County of San Francisco v. EPA, not only does the majority refer to multiple amicus briefs, but it found that the lack of supporting amicus briefs for a contention of the agency weighed in the favor of the petitioner. Additionally, with the premium placed on the adequacy of the administrative record in Ohio v. EPA (2024), expert analysis can be placed in the record by non-government entities during the required notice-and-comment process to then be considered by reviewing courts.

Finally, Loper Bright is not the only show in town when analyzing a statute. In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Supreme Court breathed new life in articulating the “major question doctrine.” That doctrine is now the new “step zero” in a Loper Bright analysis. This new preliminary plays well with the resurgence of the deferential standard of Skidmore, particularly when the agency is acting “in its own lane,” that is, acting within its own jurisdiction, where its expertise is the most compelling. Additionally, canons of interpretation have always been used by the Court, as stated by the chief justice in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) but are now even more important to resolve statutory ambiguity. See for instance, Justice Alito’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA when he opined that the Court “require[s] Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the government over private property.” This is despite the antithetical nature of these canons to a fundamentally textualist Court.

Emerging in the wake of the death of Chevron is a scheme of deference and review slowly unfolding. Rather than viewing Loper Bright as a kill switch for agency deference, it may be more helpful to view the ruling as more of a greenlight for creativity and expert analysis of all types.

Kirsten D. Flinn, a student at Harvard Law School who interned at Beveridge & Diamond last summer, significantly assisted in the researching and writing of this article.