FILLING THE DEFERENCE VACUUM: REBUILDING INTERPRETIVE AUTHORITY FOR AI AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AFTER CHEVRON
- Kiana Sinaki
- Apr 30
- 1 min read
The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo dismantled the Chevron deference doctrine, transferring interpretive authority over ambiguous statutes from federal agencies to Article III courts. This shift arrives at a uniquely consequential moment: artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies evolve at a pace that far outstrips both congressional responsiveness and judicial competence. For decades, agencies such as the FTC, FCC, EPA, NHTSA, and FERC relied on Chevron to adapt decades-old statutory frameworks to novel technologies. Without it, a deference vacuum has emerged in precisely the domains where expert judgment is most indispensable.
This Note argues that the post-Chevron framework is structurally inadequate for governing AI and emerging technologies. Drawing on case studies spanning broadband reclassification, financial derivatives regulation, greenhouse gas emissions policy, and renewable energy certification, it demonstrates that generalist courts lack the technical competence to resolve statutory ambiguities involving rapidly evolving systems. Existing fallback doctrines such as Skidmore and Auer deference provide insufficient substitutes, while the major questions doctrine and Corner Post’s expanded limitations period further destabilize settled regulatory frameworks.
To address these deficiencies, this Note proposes a Tech-Specific Deference framework consisting of three components: a rebuttable presumption of correctness for agency interpretations satisfying defined criteria of technical complexity and documented expertise; procedural safeguards requiring agencies to demonstrate genuine scientific necessity and connect technical evidence to statutory construction; and a "reasonable range" standard of review that distinguishes technical determinations from legal-policy questions reserved for independent judicial interpretation. This framework restores regulatory functionality and expert-driven governance without resurrecting the constitutional concerns that led the Court to overrule Chevron.
