2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The practice of engineering, in many instances, requires solutions that are in harmony with complex regulatory frameworks that are guided by public policy, administrative law, and at times judicial oversight. Across engineering disciplines, the practice of engineering requires compliance with statutory mandates. Traditionally, Congress may delegate power to promulgate legislative rules to administrative agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. The rules and technical standards developed by these agencies carry the force and effect of law just as statutes do. In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that rules and standards developed and enforced by agencies are to be given deference when interpreting a statute that is deemed ambiguous.

However, two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, have effectively overturned Chevron thus curtailing judicial deference to agency interpretations. In curtailing judicial deference these cases raise important questions about the role and function of administrative agencies regulating complex technical fields—such as engineering, particularly in areas requiring specialized and evolving knowledge.

This article explores the implications of these two Supreme Court cases for the practice of engineering, highlighting tensions between legal authority, technical competence, and professional discretion, and proposes strategies for interdisciplinary coordination between engineers, regulators, and policymakers. Ultimately, it argues for regulatory models that sustain both public accountability and the integrity of engineering judgment in an era of diminished administrative autonomy.