Chevron's Demise in Loper Bright Signals a Bright Future for the TCPA

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, with significant implications for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Court's ruling, which effectively nullifies the Chevron deference doctrine, represents a triumph for statutory text and the plain language of the TCPA. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the precise wording of statutes, thereby opening new avenues for holding actors accountable under the TCPA.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Loper Bright

The Loper Bright decision dismantles so-called Chevron deference, a faulty legal doctrine established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837. Under Chevron, courts deferred to federal agencies' interpretations of “ambiguous” statutes as long as those interpretations were “reasonable.” This deference often allowed agencies to exert considerable influence over the implementation and enforcement of laws, sometimes in ways that deviated from the statute's plain language and Congressional intent.

In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial interpretation must be grounded in the statutory text itself, rather than deferring to an agency's potentially biased or improper interpretation. This decision is a victory for all Americans. The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright reinforces the principle of separation of powers by reasserting the judiciary's role in interpreting laws written by Congress, rather than deferring to executive agencies, whose role is to ensure that the laws Congress wrote, interpreted by the judiciary, are “faithfully executed.” As Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence, Chevron composed the separation of powers by curbing the judicial power afforded to courts while simultaneously expanding executive power beyond constitutional limits.

Faithful execution of the laws can only occur through an informed reading of the statutory text. By rejecting Chevron, the Court today has ensured that judges, not bureaucrats, are responsible for determining the meaning of statutes like the TCPA passed by Congress, thereby maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government. This aligns with the foundational principle articulated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), and cited by the Court, where Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." By adhering to this principle, the Loper Bright decision safeguards the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of statutory interpretation, upholding the constitutional structure designed to prevent any one branch from gaining undue authority.

Loper Bright’s Implications for the TCPA

The TCPA shines as a model of clarity, as the Fourth Circuit and numerous other Courts have declared. The plain language of the TCPA prohibits certain communications without prior express written consent from the recipient. However, over the years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued various rulings that have at times muddied the clear waters of the statute, presenting loopholes for telemarketers to exploit to consumers’ detriment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright has significant implications for the Court's previous ruling in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. In PDR Network, the Court faced the question of whether a district court must accept the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA when it has not been challenged in a timely manner under the Hobbs Act. The decision left open important questions about the extent to which lower courts must defer to agency interpretations of statutes, reflecting ongoing tensions regarding Chevron deference. With Loper Bright overruling Chevron, the ambiguity surrounding PDR Network is substantially resolved. Lower courts are no longer bound to defer to the FCC's interpretations if they conflict with the plain language of the TCPA. These interpretations often, but not always, run contrary to the plain language of the statute and the TCPA’s consumer protection goals. District courts now have the authority to independently interpret the TCPA, even in the face of prior FCC rulings, provided they adhere to the statute's text.

This shift emphasizes the judiciary's role in statutory interpretation and could lead to more consistent and predictable enforcement of the TCPA. For instance, courts can now scrutinize FCC rulings such as the tremendously anti-consumer Broadnet Ruling and evaluate their alignment with the TCPA's clear prohibitions without feeling compelled to defer to the agency's anti-consumer interpretations. The Broadnet Ruling, exempted callers from TCPA liability when they were calling in furtherance of “official government business,” an interpretation of a term that is found nowhere in the statutory text. This ruling effectively allowed politicians and their associates to bombard citizens with unsolicited calls and texts under the guise of “government business.” Loper Bright enhances the judicial oversight of agency action, reinforcing the separation of powers by ensuring that courts remain the ultimate interpreters of the law, as affirmed in Marbury. The Loper Bright decision thus not only clarifies the boundaries of agency deference but also strengthens the judicial branch's role in maintaining the integrity of statutory law.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright is a significant step toward ensuring that the TCPA is enforced as Congress intended. By overruling Chevron , the Court has reaffirmed the primacy of statutory text and opened the door for increased accountability under the TCPA. This decision heralds a bright future for consumers, as it strengthens the legal framework protecting them from unsolicited calls and texts. The TCPA, bolstered by this return to textualism, stands as a robust safeguard for consumer privacy in the modern era.