Post-Chevron AI Governance: Why Persuasion Beats Deference in Regulatory Preemption

Shift from executive/administrative agency dominance toward judicial review and state autonomy. Federal preemption authority weakened; state governments gain leverage in AI regulation. This decentralizes tech governance and reduces uniform federal control, potentially fragmenting U.S. regulatory landscape.

Similar to 1930s-1980s federalism debates over commerce regulation; echoes New Deal tension between federal agencies and state sovereignty, though reversed in outcome (states gain power rather than lose it).

Consumers may benefit from state-level protections and litigation remedies for AI harms, but face increased compliance costs passed through prices due to fragmented regulatory standards across states. Uncertainty may slow AI product deployment and innovation.

Federal agencies must now persuade rather than dictate on AI regulation, likely requiring clearer statutory language from Congress. States gain leverage to establish divergent AI liability frameworks, potentially prompting federal legislative action to create uniform standards. Litigation costs may increase as state tort claims proceed without federal preemption barriers.