Lawsuits in the Wake of Chevron Deference

This week, we are taking a second to dig into the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Chevron and the impact it has already had. Yes, I know that it’s the third week of 2025 and that decision was handed down at the very end of June 2024, but the impact is already bubbling to the surface, and it doesn’t appear that it will stop anytime soon. That includes the impact of this decision on a pending lawsuit brought by America’s Credit Unions (ACU) and others challenging the CFPB’s overdraft protection rule set to take effect on Oct. 1 of this year. 

Refresher: Wait, What Happened to Chevron and What Does that Mean? 

In an early edition of take a second, I broke down the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down what was referred to as the Chevron deference in June of 2024. If you want to take a look at my more in-depth breakdown you can find it here. But in short, that ruling by the Supreme Court said that courts were no longer to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes administered by the agencies, even if those interpretations were reasonable. Forty years of precedent erased with a single decision, forcing those federal agencies who benefited from the deference to reimagine how the promulgate rules. 

Now What? 

There have been a number of challenges brought in court against federal agencies based on rules that they promulgated while relying on Chevron. Recently a federal appellate court in the 6th Circuit struck down the net-neutrality rules that were promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on the grounds that the FCC exceeded their authority in promulgating this rule.  

As I mentioned, ACU, along with the Mississippi Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, Arvest Bank, Bank of Franklin and The Commercial Bank, filed a complaint against the CFPB, challenging its overdraft protection rule and calling into question the CFPB’s authority to promulgate the rule in light of the Supreme Court decision. ACU has an article breaking down their decision to file this complaint which you can find here . This complaint brought by ACU is still in the early stages of litigation, but our team will make sure to keep you updated as it progresses.  

Legal Advocacy at Work

This year, MCUL is making a concerted effort to ramp up our advocacy efforts through legal advocacy. This can take many different forms but at the moment it has materialized through our participation in filing a joint amicus brief with 18 other state credit union leagues representing 29 states in support of ACU’s lawsuit against the CFPB.  

You’re probably asking yourself, what is an amicus brief and why is it important that we used this tool in our advocacy toolbox? Let’s take a step back and break it down. An amicus brief is a legal tool that allows individuals or groups who are not parties in a lawsuit to provide additional information and/or arguments to the court for consideration. This legal advocacy tool allows groups, such as MCUL, to provide additional real-world implications and important information about how a ruling would impact our members directly to the court to consider when making a ruling.  

Key Takeaways? 

Rule promulgation at the federal level is likely to slow down for a period of time while federal agencies continue to reorient their operations and processes in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Rules promulgated by federal agencies are ripe to be challenged and based on the recent court decisions, we are likely to see the courts push back on agencies they feel overstepped their authority. In short, we are in for an interesting 2025 on the legal and regulatory fronts! 

To sum it up… 

The impacts of the Supreme Court’s decision to do away with the Chevron deference undoubtedly will continue throughout 2025 and beyond. This decision, coupled with the shakeup of a new administration in the White House, lead me to believe that there may be a temporary slowdown in rule promulgation at the federal level, but we will just have to wait and see. If only I had a crystal ball! 

As always, this article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about these topics and/or the possible implications, you should contact your attorney for advice.  

Hope to see you next time, when we take a second to discuss another legal topic in the financial services industry! 

« Return to "Take a Second CU Legal Insights"