De Chevron a Loper Bright: a nova perspectiva sobre a deferência nos Estados Unidos e seu impacto no Brasil reflexões sobre a superação da doutrina Chevron e as lições a serem incorporadas no controle judicial de atos normativos das Agências Reguladoras brasileiras

Abstract

Here's the English translation of the text, followed by the keywords: This study aims to investigate judicial deference to Public Administration, following the overruling of the Chevron doctrine by the United States Supreme Court in 2024, and to examine the potential impacts of this change on the Brazilian model of judicial review of regulatory agencies' normative activity. The research adopts a comparative approach, focusing on the historical formation and jurisprudential criteria in the United States and Brazil. It demonstrates that the U.S. model is characterized by a procedural and pragmatic rationality, while the Brazilian model is anchored in a legalistic logic, with an emphasis on formal legality. By mapping precedents from the United States Supreme Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal), it concludes that, while U.S. courts developed objective deference tests – such as the Skidmore, Chevron, and Loper Bright cases – Brazilian jurisprudence is marked by the absence of clear criteria and the centrality of the principle of legality as a decisive foundation. The study argues that, although the overruling of Chevron in the United States reaffirmed judicial prominence, it also invites a reconfiguration of judicial deference along institutional and procedural lines. In the Brazilian case, it is proposed that the STF adopt parameters already established in infra-constitutional legislation, such as the LINDB and the Federal Regulatory Agencies Law, already considered by the literature, as objective guidelines for judicial review of agencies' normative actions, strengthening the predictability and democratic legitimacy of regulation