Abstract
In June 2024, the US Supreme Court released its judgment in Loper Bright, with a majority overruling the long-standing principle of Chevron deference to regulators on questions of statutory interpretation. Loper Bright ostensibly aligns the US approach with the general common law position. This paper reviews Loper Bright for a common law audience and argues that it represents an opportunity to reappraise the merits of those cases in Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law where excessive deference to regulators has been applied despite the basic rule that questions of law are for the courts to determine. In particular, it critically examines example cases of excessive regulatory deference from the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which now appear highly anomalous in light of Loper Bright. In doing so, the paper argues that to the extent that Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law retains scope to accommodate presumptive deference to regulators, this should be reformulated. It is for the judiciary to authoritatively determine questions of law, even where regulatory expertise or judgement is involved.