CourtListener Live
Illustrative walkthrough — Chevron / Loper Bright

The brieflooked solid.

Consider a brief that leans on Chevron deference. On paper it looks airtight — but Chevron was overruled by Loper Bright on June 28, 2024, and a citation that was good law last term can be bad law today. This walkthrough shows what MikeCheck surfaces when it checks each citation against CourtListener. Assisted research — not legal advice.

6
Citations in this example
3
Flagged for review
$0
Open access
Live
CourtListener-backed
Scroll
01 — Analysis

Real-time citation scanning

MikeCheck reads a brief, extracts the citations it can parse, and checks each one against CourtListener — flagging the ones that need a closer look.

United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit
Petitioner's Brief on the Merits
No. 23-1127
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Court should grant relief because the EPA's Final Rule relies on an impermissible expansion of its statutory authority. As established in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), when a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency's reasonable construction.
Under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), the agency's interpretation of its own regulations must receive controlling weight. Furthermore, City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) confirmed that Chevron deference extends to determinations of jurisdictional authority.
II. ARGUMENT
The arbitrary-and-capricious standard of Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) requires agencies to examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation. The EPA's rule fails this standard. See also FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009); Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016).
Waiting
Example
1 Extracting citations
2 Resolving reporters
3 Checking validity
4 Analyzing treatment
5 Generating report
Risk Level
CRITICAL
3 citations require immediate attention
2Overruled
1Weakened
3Good law
02 — Findings

What MikeCheck found

6
Citations analyzed
2
Overruled
1
Weakened
3
Good law
Illustrative example
⚠ Requires attention
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
● Overruled
467 U.S. 837 (1984) · Supreme Court
⚠ Overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). Chevron deference is no longer good law as of June 28, 2024.
overruledabrogatednot good lawno longer controlling
100% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Loper Bright (2024) eliminated Chevron deference entirely — courts now interpret ambiguous statutes independently. No transition period; applies immediately to all pending cases.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Remove all Chevron citations. Rebuild the statutory argument from text and legislative history. Courts may find agency readings persuasive as interpretive aids, but no longer binding.
City of Arlington v. FCC
● Questioned
569 U.S. 290 (2013) · Supreme Court
⚠ Heavily undermined by West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright (2024). Jurisdictional Chevron rationale is no longer valid.
questionedlimiteddistinguished
87% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
West Virginia v. EPA (2022) introduced the Major Questions Doctrine: agencies need clear congressional authorization for economically significant actions. Arlington’s self-deference rationale is functionally abandoned.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Analyze whether the Major Questions Doctrine applies. If the agency action is significant, find explicit statutory authorization — deference to the agency’s own jurisdictional reading will not survive.
Auer v. Robbins
⚡ Weakened
519 U.S. 452 (1997) · Supreme Court
⚡ Significantly narrowed by Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019). Auer deference now applies only in limited circumstances.
narrowedlimitedreaffirmed in part
79% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) imposed five conditions: genuine regulatory ambiguity, reasonable agency reading, authoritative agency position, implicates agency expertise, and reflects fair and considered judgment. All five must be met.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Apply the Kisor five-factor test before relying on Auer. If the regulation is clear on its face, courts will simply interpret it — Auer won’t apply. Document why each Kisor condition is satisfied.
✓ 3 citations confirmed as good law
✓ Good law
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
✓ Good Law
463 U.S. 29 (1983) · Supreme Court
followedaffirmedapplied
95% confidence
WHY IT'S SAFE
The bedrock APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires agencies to examine relevant data, articulate a satisfactory explanation, and consider all important aspects of the problem. Post-Chevron, State Farm becomes even more central to APA review.
HOW TO USE IT
Position as the primary anchor for any arbitrary-and-capricious challenge. Pair with Encino Motorcars when the agency reversed a prior position without adequate explanation.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
✓ Good Law
556 U.S. 502 (2009) · Supreme Court
followedapplied
91% confidence
WHY IT'S SAFE
Fox confirmed agencies may change policies without always providing more detailed justification than for initial adoption — but must at minimum acknowledge the prior policy and explain the change.
HOW TO USE IT
Cite Fox alongside State Farm when defending or challenging an agency policy shift. Fox sets the floor; State Farm is the standard.
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro
✓ Good Law
579 U.S. 211 (2016) · Supreme Court
followed
88% confidence
WHY IT'S SAFE
Applied State Farm to strike down a DOL rule that reversed an FLSA exemption interpretation without explanation. Even technical regulatory areas require reasoned explanation; longstanding reliance does not excuse the reversal.
HOW TO USE IT
Cite when the challenged rule reversed a prior interpretation without explanation. Particularly effective in labor contexts but the reasoning applies to all APA challenges.
03 — Citation Network

The citation web

Every case exists inside a web of precedent. MikeCheck maps it — revealing which nodes have gone dark, and what that means for the cases that depended on them.

Overruled / Bad law
Weakened / Questioned
Good law
Related / Historical
04 — Jurisdiction Intelligence

A nation divided

MikeCheck can organize jurisdiction-specific treatment signals for attorney review, including places where courts appear to apply related precedent differently.

8Circuits analyzed
DirectSplit type
ReviewCert posture
Major Questions DoctrineIssue
← Narrow applicationBroad application →
1st Cir.
Narrow
2nd Cir.
Narrow
4th Cir.
Broad
5th Cir.
Broad
6th Cir.
Narrow
9th Cir.
Narrow
11th Cir.
Narrow
D.C. Cir.
Mixed
Cert Review Posture
Manual review
This example shows how a split-style signal can be surfaced for assisted research. It is not a prediction of certiorari or litigation outcome.
Attorney judgment required
05 — Quote Verification

Every word matters

A misquoted precedent can unravel an argument. MikeCheck checks quoted passages against the source opinion's text — surfacing subtle alterations for your review.

✗ As written in brief
"When a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific question, the issue is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
✓ Actual source text
"When a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)
0%
Similarity score
The quote substitutes "a specific question" for "the specific issue" — a subtle change that alters the legal standard. Courts notice. MikeCheck flags the discrepancy so you can correct it before filing.
06 — Treatment History

40 years. One morning.

Chevron deference shaped federal administrative law for four decades. MikeCheck's treatment timeline shows the doctrinal drift — and the precise moment it ended.

Positive treatment
Negative treatment
Run the same check on your own brief

What's hiding in
your brief?

Upload a legal brief. MikeCheck checks its citations against CourtListener, flags overrulings and negative treatment, verifies quoted text, and maps the authority chain — assisted research to support your own review, not a substitute for it.

Upload your briefCheck a citationTry it free
Or open an interactive demo brief
Chevron / Loper Bright (2024)demoKorematsu v. United States (1944)demoMiranda v. Arizona (1966)demo
Or read an annotated case story
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993)storyErie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938)storyRoe v. Wade (1973)storyMarbury v. Madison (1803)story
Landmark case deep-dives
Roe v. Wade (1973)Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Brown v. Board of Education (1954)Marbury v. Madison (1803)Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (1984)Korematsu v. United States (1944)