Donate
Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, argued and decided alongside Loper Bright v. Raimondo, transformed administrative law by overturning the Chevron deference doctrine. For decades, agencies exploited statutory ambiguities to expand their own authority, leaving Americans subject to bureaucratic interpretations rather than the independent judgment of real judges. This era is now over.
The Relentless Working Group brings together leading attorneys and organizations aligned with NCLA’s mission to monitor, analyze, and discuss how lower courts apply this historic ruling. Our objective is to ensure that the responsibility for authoritatively interpreting and applying the law remains where the Constitution put it—with federal judges, not agency bureaucrats. Join us in safeguarding judicial independence and holding administrative agencies accountable.

BEFORE:

Administrative law under Chevron was a travesty of justice

  • Chevron required courts to systematically favor (i.e., pre-commit to preferring) executive branch agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

  • Even when a court thought the non-agency litigant’s position more accurately captured the law’s meaning, it nevertheless deferred to the agency’s understanding of the law so long as it was merely ‘reasonable.’

  • The Chevron doctrine ignored the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that courts not defer to administrative agencies.  

  • More importantly, every time a court deferred to an agency’s interpretation of the law, it abandoned its core constitutional duty to independently and authoritatively determine the most accurate meaning of the law as written by Congress.

  • Chevron created a systemic bias in favor of government agencies, which deprived American citizens of the unbiased adjudicators promised them by the Constitution.

AFTER:

Administrative law under Loper Bright/Relentless is more constitutionally compliant

  • The balance of justice is once more true and even when determining the meaning of an ambiguous statute.

  • Courts independently determine the most accurate meaning of the law because judges—not agency employees—are the experts in legal interpretation. 

  • The Administrative Procedure Act’s original and unchanged requirement that courts ensure that administrative agencies’ conclusions are in accordance with the law is once again respected.

  • More importantly, the duty to independently and authoritatively determine the most accurate meaning of the law, as enacted by Congress, has returned to where the Constitution put it—the judiciary.

  • Agencies may still offer their views on the meaning of ambiguous statutes, but that view is no longer binding on the courts.

  • In lawsuits involving administrative agencies, American citizens can be confident that courts, not the opposing party, will answer questions of law.

Court Opinions/Orders

DateCourtCase NameDocument
1/10/2025U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitMichael Lissack, Appellant v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueOpinion
1/2/2025U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitIn re: MCP No. 185Opinion
12/23/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitMiguel Angel Moctezuma-Reyes v. Merrick B. GarlandOpinion
12/10/2024U.S. Supreme CourtAmina Bouarfa v. Alejandro MayorkasOpinion
11/8/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitGrand Canyon University v. Miguel A. CardonaOpinion
9/3/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitLake Region Healthcare Corporation v. Xavier BecerraOpinion
8/26/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitState of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra, et al.Opinion
8/26/2024U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick DivisionState of Kansas, et al. v. U.S. Department of LaborOpinion
8/23/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitRestaurant Law Center v. United States Department of LaborOpinion
8/13/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitHuntsman Petrochemical LLC v. Environmental Protection AgencyOpinion
8/1/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitIn re: MCP No. 185Opinion
DateCourtCase NameDocument

Briefs

DateCourtCase NameFiling Party
11/26/2024U.S. District Courtfor the District of Rhode IslandRelentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.Defendants’ Supplemental Response Brief
11/12/2024U.S. District Courtfor the District of Rhode IslandRelentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ Supplemental Brief
11/7/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitSecretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc., et al.Supplemental Reply Brief for the Secretary of Labor
10/25/2024U.S. District Courtfor the District of Rhode IslandRelentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.Defendants’ Supplemental Brief
10/23/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitSecretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc., et al.Supplemental BriefFor Respondent Kc Transport, Inc.
10/9/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitState of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra, et al.Petition for Rehearing en Banc
9/26/2024U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode IslandRelentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
9/23/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitSecretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc., et al.Supplemental Brief for the Secretary of Labor
9/4/2024U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitLoper Bright Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Gina Raimondo, et al.Brief Amici Curiae of Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc. And Seafreeze Fleet LLC in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
8/22/2024U.S. District Court for the Western District OfTexasDavidson, et al. v. Gensler, et al.Brief of Advancing American Freedom, Inc., Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs
8/22/2024U.S. Court of AppealsFor the Fourth CircuitFrank Harmon Black, et al. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionPetitioners’ Reply Brief
8/19/2024U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia CircuitStates of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.Supplemental Brief for Private Petitioners
8/19/2023U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia CircuitStates of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.EPA’s Supplemental Brief
7/31/2023U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia CircuitHuntsman Petrochemical LLC v. Environmental Protection AgencyBrief of the Chamber of Commerce of the UnitedStates of America and the National Association OfManufacturers as Amici Curiae in Support OfPetitioners and Vacatur
DateCourtCase NameFiling Party

Articles

DateTitleAuthorPublication
1/13/2025How Decline Of Deference Will Affect Trump PolicymakingKevin King and Brad GrisentiLaw360
1/3/2025Good Riddance to Net NeutralityThe Editorial BoardThe Wall Street Journal
12/16/2024What Loper Bright And Trump 2.0 Mean For New Transpo TechAriel Wolf, David Bonelli and Ian WilliamsLaw360
12/15/2024The looming post-Chevron fight over the administrative stateEli NachmanyThe Hill
9/25/2024The Supreme Court’s New New DealDan GreenbergCompetitive Enterprise Institute
9/23/2024A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large- Scale Disruption.” The EIects Are Already Being Felt.Eli SandersProPublica
9/19/2024Overturning Chevron Is a Major VictoryPhilip HamburgerTom Klingenstein
9/18/2024The Curtain Falls on Chevron: Will the Chevron Two-Step Give Way to a Simpler Loper Bright-Line Rule?Ronald A. CassThe Federalist Society
9/3/2024Anticipating A New Modern Skidmore StandardKristin E. HickmanNone
8/23/2024The Sixth Circuit Stays the FCC’s Latest Net Neutrality Flip-FlopRandolph MayThe Federalist Society
8/13/2024After Chevron, a New Birth of Deference for the Administrative State?Jack Fitzhenry, Caleb SampsonThe Federalist Society
DateTitleAuthorPublication

Videos