With Chevron deference overturned, the immediate consequences of the Supreme Court's decision are far-reaching and significant for federal workers. Image: Einar Magnus Magnusson/Shutterstock.com
By: Justin Schnitzer, Esq.On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a decision that had immediate and long-term consequences for employment law. What can federal employees expect in the post-Chevron era, especially with a new administration? Let’s take it point by point.
What Was Chevron Deference?
Chevron deference was a legal principle stating that courts must accept federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. This was seen as appropriate deference to agencies’ expertise in their respective areas.
First, courts checked if Congress had ruled clearly on the issue. If Congress was unclear, courts moved to step two and accepted the agency’s view unless it was unreasonable. This seemingly simple test shaped decades of administrative law decisions, becoming a cornerstone of how courts review agency actions. The doctrine gave agencies significant power to interpret the laws they enforced, as long as their interpretations stayed within reasonable bounds.
Chevron often came into play in Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decisions when interpreting federal personnel laws. A typical case might involve the board’s reading of what counts as “misconduct” under civil service rules. Other affected tribunals include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
Immediate Consequences of Overturning Chevron
With Chevron deference overturned, the immediate consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision are far-reaching and significant for federal workers. In fact, the day the SCOTUS decision was handed down, U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan cited it in a decision regarding overtime pay.
Increased Scrutiny of Agency Decisions
Courts should now exercise “independent judgment” when interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions related to federal employment, rather than deferring to agency interpretations. This shift allows the judiciary to actively engage in statutory interpretation of employment laws, potentially leading to differing legal interpretations across different courts.
In tandem with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Schedule F, the Supreme Court Chevron decision will mean more scrutiny of agency decisions — especially since DOGE heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to slash the federal workforce by up to 75%.
Impact on Ongoing and Future Federal Employee Cases
The elimination of Chevron deference is already affecting federal employee cases.
To name just a few examples:
FLSA Overtime Regulations: The DOL’s salary level test in its final overtime rule was found to “effectively displace” the FLSA’s exemption of employees with certain duties from overtime pay.
NLRB Rulings: Courts reviewing National Labor Relations Board rulings are likely to accord far less deference to Board decisions and reasoning, potentially impacting labor relations cases involving federal employees.
Challenges to Administrative Rules: The new judicial approach may affect ongoing challenges to labor and employment administrative rules. For example, the DOL’s definition of white-collar workers may change, affecting who gets overtime pay and who doesn’t.
Potential Legal Challenges and Re-litigation
In the D.C. Circuit, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) cases are likely to face new challenges. The court may now exercise its independent judgment in interpreting statutes related to federal labor relations, potentially leading to different outcomes in cases involving collective bargaining rights and unfair labor practices
MSPB cases in the Federal Circuit are also subject to re-examination. Previously, the Federal Circuit reviewed MSPB jurisdictional determinations de novo (without considering the court’s previous decision), but this approach may need adjustment in light of Loper Bright.
However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the mere reliance of a previous decision on Chevron is not sufficient grounds for overturning that decision. Plaintiffs challenging regulations will need to present compelling arguments beyond simply citing Loper Bright.
Specific Employee Policies at Risk
Many key employee policies are now at risk. For example, telework policies sit on shaky ground. OPM’s broad reading of the Telework Enhancement Act let agencies count telework time toward overtime calculations. Courts might now reject this interpretation, affecting pay for remote federal workers, and some agencies may revise their telework rules.
Another example is the MSPB’s definition of “poor performance.” The standard for what qualifies as “unacceptable performance” could be lowered, making it easier for agencies to take adverse actions against employees. Additionally, courts might interpret the law to require fewer procedural safeguards for employees facing performance-based actions, such as shorter performance improvement periods or less specific performance expectations.
Federal retirement benefits face new scrutiny, too. OPM’s rules about what counts as creditable service could shift. This might affect how military service, temp work, and part-time hours count toward retirement. Many federal employees near retirement age would need to recalculate their eligibility dates.
The EEOC’s interpretation of reasonable accommodation requirements might not survive. The commission has read the Rehabilitation Act to require extensive interactive processes. Courts could now demand less from agencies, making it harder for disabled employees to get accommodations.
Additionally, leave policies may be at risk. OPM’s flexible rules about FMLA coverage for various family situations could tighten up. Courts might narrow which family emergencies qualify for protected leave.
Case Study: Net Neutrality Ruling
On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected the FCC’s authority to classify internet providers as common carriers, striking down net neutrality rules that the D.C. Circuit had previously upheld under Chevron.
The ruling hinged on the court’s interpretation of phrases like “information services” and “telecommunications services.” Analyzing these terms’ meanings, the judges reached conclusions that differed from the FCC’s technical understanding.
This case sets a concerning pattern for federal regulation. The court acknowledged the FCC’s deep technical expertise but declared it irrelevant to interpreting the law. Other agencies face similar risks. EPA air quality standards, OSHA workplace safety rules, and SEC financial regulations could all fall to courts’ word-by-word analysis of decades-old laws.
The decision’s scope reaches beyond net neutrality. Courts can now freely reinterpret any ambiguous phrase in federal laws, regardless of agency expertise or past practice. Agency rules that once seemed permanent may now be temporary.
Impact on Federal Employee Tribunals
The EEOC has set standards for what counts as a hostile work environment, reasonable accommodation, and age discrimination. Courts may now reject these definitions, especially over remote work currently required as reasonable accommodation for a disability.
The commission’s investigative powers might shrink, too. EEOC subpoenas and document demands relied on broad interpretations of civil rights laws, and courts could limit what evidence EEOC can demand from employers during investigations.
Additionally, class action procedures could change. The EEOC developed special rules for group discrimination claims that bypass normal class certification requirements. These procedures let the commission sue on behalf of all affected workers, but courts might now force each employee to file individual claims.
That said, Congress wrote strong civil rights protections into federal law. While courts may reject EEOC’s interpretations, the core anti-discrimination mandates — including for disability — still stand.
What to Remember As a Federal Employee
Keep detailed records of everything: emails, meeting notes, and performance feedback. Save texts from your supervisor, print copies of your telework agreements, and keep copies of your disability accommodations.
This is a frightening time for many federal employees, but few of the sweeping changes the new administration has proposed will happen overnight. Instead, those changes will be challenged in lawsuits, which take time to work their way through the courts.
Attorney Justin Schnitzer represents federal employees in cases of employment violations just as he would want to be represented, all with the aim of achieving decisive victories. His passion for employment law and the fight for fundamental fairness began when he served as a judicial intern for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He is admitted to the State Bar of Maryland.
Agency RIFs, Reorganizations Starting to Take Shape
Order Formally Launches ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ Adds Category of Appointees
Top 10 Provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill of Interest to Federal Employees
A Pre-RIF Checklist for Every Federal Employee, From a Federal Employment Attorney
Work Longer or Take the FERS Supplement Now: Which is Better?
See also
Alternative Federal Retirement Options; With Chart
Primer: Early out, buyout, reduction in force (RIF)
Retention Standing, ‘Bump and Retreat’ and More: Report Outlines RIF Process
