The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year law that had given national agencies significant respect in how they interpret federal law. The Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will result in firm decisions that affect the sports sector, such as whether noncompetes for gymnastics executives are legitimate and whether school athletes are employees, will be more prone to legal challenge in federal court.
Loper Bright is a circumstance about angling, with a group of herring fishing companies challenging a NMFS ( National Marine Fisheries Service ) rules mandating that boats permit a person ashore to obtain protection information and give that person about$ 710 per day. According to judge papers, that pay equated to around 20 % of the fishery income.

Lower courts argued that the company’s employing regulation of a national law withstanded legal scrutiny because they were compelled to give respect to federal agencies. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, courts were required to submit firm view when a legislation was confusing and the accompanying company understanding was justifiable or acceptable.
That submissive standard, which became known as” Chevron deference”, made it difficult for businesses and individuals to challenge agencies in court. Critics claimed Chevron’s excessive deference overpowered unelected regulators and agency staff, who were aware that courts had largely ceded control of their decisions. However, backers argued that Chevron devalued the judgment of competent authorities as well as the judgment of competent government officials.
The Court overruled Chevron and held that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation simply because the statute is ambiguous in a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
” Chevron’s presumption is misguided”, Roberts wrote, “because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do”.
Because judges exercise “independent legal judgment,” Roberts claimed that the framers “expected that courts would resolve” disputes about how to interpret federal statutes. He further maintained that the “scope of an agency’s own power” is “perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate”.
With agency deference gone, whether or not college athletes are considered employees under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act may become more susceptible to legal challenges. The NLRB is looking into whether Dartmouth College’s men’s basketball players and USC’s men’s and women’s basketball players are school employees or, in the case of USC, are also NCAA and conference employees.
Jennifer Abruzzo, NLRB general counsel, is a strong advocate for college athletes working for the organization’s board. However, if President Joe Biden loses to Trump in the fall, his choice as NLRB general counsel might have a different perspective.

The implication of Loper Bright is that if the challenger genuinely contends that the statutory language is unclear, the chances of that the NLRB decision to go to court will be worse. Loper Bright might end up playing a significant role given that federal judges have held that the legal definition of an employee is “hopefully circular.” In the employment debate, one side may benefit from this post-Chevron framework, but it may benefit the other. However, it implies that the courts will likely make the final decision regarding whether college athletes are employees.
Loper Bright might play a significant role in other aspects of the sports industry, such as the FTC’s efforts to outlaw noncompetes and regulate influencers, and sporadic requests to have the FTC oversee college sports agents.
Many sports executives and coaches consent to noncompetes as part of their employment, and some influencers are college athletes who can now profit from their NIL. Although the FTC’s ban on noncompetes is already up for legal challenge, additional lawsuits could be brought against the agency for allegedly abusing federal statutes.
The SEC may also see more aggressive action taken by athletes who promote crypto assets on social media in ways that are inappropriate for the sport. Paul Pierce, a former Boston Celtics star, was given a$ 1.4 million fine last year by the SEC for his social media advocacy of crypto.