What SCOTUS Ruling Could Mean for IP Policy Challenges

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is expected to limit the power of federal agencies, including those of the U.S. Copyright Office. The ruling overturned the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, thereby eliminating the doctrine of Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous language in federal laws. Instead, the Court’s decision suggests that the lower standard of Skidmore deference should apply. As established in Skidmore v. Swift, Skidmore deference provides that while an agency's interpretations and opinions may provide guidance, they are not controlling on courts.

Speaking to Managing Intellectual Property, Finnegan partner and Copyright Practice Leader Anna Chauvet noted that—in contrast with the Supreme Court’s determination that courts, rather than agencies, are better suited to resolve legal ambiguities—the U.S. Copyright Office is often asked to consider and decide novel questions of the law. Anna also noted that under the Skidmore standard, courts can still consider Copyright Office information as guidance.

"Because it has so much experience interpreting novel questions of copyright law, its guidance can be particularly useful to courts," she added.

Read “What SCOTUS Ruling Could Mean for IP Policy Challenges”