The Chevron doctrine, also known as Chevron deference, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agencys interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer). The doctrine was coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in 1984. The Chevron deference requires that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute. The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. The Chevron doctrine has become a central pillar of the modern administrative state, giving the executive branch considerable leeway in determining the scope of its own power. However, since 2016, the Supreme Court appears to be moving away from the Chevron framework in favor of an alternative interpretative principle, the “major questions doctrine”. The Court agreed to hear a case seeking to overrule the Chevron framework in its 2023 term, which may shed light on Chevron’s future.