The End of Chevron: Implications for AI & Copyright Law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the consolidated cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (together, “Loper Bright”) marks a significant shift in the power dynamics between federal agencies and the judiciary. By overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court eliminated the doctrine of Chevron deference, which had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous language in federal laws. Loper Bright shifts responsibility from federal agencies – including the U.S. Copyright Office – to the judiciary, and directs judges to apply their own judgment in deciding whether “the law means what the agency says.”

While the full impact of Loper Bright is still unfolding, it may impact the Copyright Office’s guidance on novel legal questions concerning AI and copyright. The Copyright Office is poised to issue guidance regarding several novel areas of law requiring interpretation concerning copyright and generative AI. Loper Bright may create an opportunity for stakeholders to challenge the Copyright Office’s practices and legal interpretations where they might not have previously. In addition, with courts now required to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” instead of deferring to the Copyright Office’s expertise, courts may reach inconsistent and varied decisions on the same question of legal interpretation.

Loper Bright could also frustrate Congress’s practice of enacting legislation with the assumption that the federal agencies administering the law will have the freedom to interpret ambiguities.