[2][3] In lieu of Chevron, the decision assigns the determination of congressional ambiguity to the judicial branch, with executive agency expertise still to be considered under the weaker Skidmore deference.

It began to develop an amendment to the New England fishery management plans that would give the council the power – though not explicitly given in the MSA – to require the fishing industry to pay the costs of additional monitoring.

The NEC submitted this amendment to the NMFS, which in February 2020 published its final rule establishing a standardized process that would require industry-funded monitoring across New England fisheries.

In the specific case at the heart of Chevron, the challenge arose from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of what defined a source of production of pollution in its authority granted by Congress through the Clean Air Act.

While this case did not overturn Chevron, it defined the major questions doctrine that was used in future cases to question the interpretation of administrative law when the financial impact of the law had not been considered by the agency,[10] such as in Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), which blocked President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness project under the HEROES Act for failing to account for its financial cost to states.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on February 8, 2022.

However, the Circuit Court did not rest its analysis at the first step of Chevron, concluding that the language of the MSA was not completely unambiguous about whether or not it provides for industry-funded monitoring of the herring fishery.

Instead, they concluded their analysis at the second step of Chevron, stating that the NMFS reasonably interpreted the MSA when it came to what the Court deemed the "silence on the issue of cost of at-sea monitoring".

First, it asked the Court to rule on whether granting the NMFS the power to require domestic vessels to pay the salaries of monitors it carries was based on a proper application of Chevron.

The Supreme Court later granted the petition to Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce in October 2023, a closely related case originating out of the First Circuit also challenging the fees issued by the NMFS and Chevron deference, with which Justice Jackson had no conflict.

"[14][17] Justice Roberts continued that "Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions", and the judicial venues allows for additional input from interested parties via amicus briefs.

[14] In the specifics of the Loper Bright case, the majority opinion also found that the 1976 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements.

Justice Gorsuch further wrote that the only change in administrative law going forward is that federal courts should "resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government's favor.

Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund warned that the decision "undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters".

[23] Some commentators, including the dissenting justices, pointed out that the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System could amplify the re-litigation of regulations given Chevron deference because it created a workaround for the six-year statute of limitations for lawsuits.

Adrian Vermeule, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, argued that "much or most of what was (somewhat misleadingly) called 'Chevron deference'" could "be recreated under a different label", pointing to language in the majority opinion acknowledging that Congress remains permitted to delegate interpretive authority to agencies via statute.

[25] Cass Sunstein, Vermeule's colleague at Harvard and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, stated this possibility but concluded that the decision would likely be more consequential, generating "a significant increase in ideological divisions in the lower courts".

[3] Senator Elizabeth Warren led the introduction of the Stop Corporate Capture Act bill in July 2024 that aimed to codify Chevron deference into law and effectively reversing Loper Bright, in addition to increasing transparency and efficiency in the rule-making process.