Chevron deference to agency interpretation
What is Chevron Deference?
Chevron deference is a principle from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.
The two-step Chevron test is:
Step One: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise issue?
If yes, courts and agencies must follow Congress’s clear intent.
If no (the statute is ambiguous or silent), move to Step Two.
Step Two: Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable or permissible?
If yes, courts defer to the agency’s expertise.
If no, courts do not defer and may reject the interpretation.
Chevron deference recognizes that agencies have expertise in administering statutes within their domain and are better positioned than courts to fill in statutory gaps.
Important Chevron Cases
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted the Clean Air Act to allow states to treat new and existing sources of pollution differently for emissions limitations.
Issue: Did EPA’s interpretation align with the Clean Air Act?
Holding: The Court established the Chevron two-step framework. Because the statute was ambiguous about how to regulate new vs. existing sources, and EPA’s interpretation was reasonable, the Court deferred to the agency.
Significance: This case created the framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations.
2. United States v. Mead Corp. (2001)
Facts: The issue was whether Customs’ tariff classification rulings deserved Chevron deference.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that Chevron deference applies only when Congress delegated authority to the agency to make rules carrying the force of law. Informal agency actions, such as tariff rulings, may only receive Skidmore deference (respect based on persuasiveness), not full Chevron deference.
Significance: Clarified that not all agency interpretations qualify for Chevron deference — the agency must have been given authority by Congress to make binding rules.
3. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services (2005)
Facts: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) classified cable broadband Internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” This classification affected regulation.
Issue: Could the FCC’s new interpretation override a previous court ruling?
Holding: Yes. The Court reaffirmed Chevron deference and held that if an agency’s interpretation is reasonable and the statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency—even if the court had previously ruled differently.
Significance: This case emphasized that agency interpretations made under Chevron can supersede earlier judicial interpretations if the statute is ambiguous.
4. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts: The issue was whether tax credits under the Affordable Care Act applied to insurance purchased on federal exchanges.
Holding: The Court held that Chevron deference did not apply because the question was of deep “economic and political significance” and Congress likely did not intend the agency to decide it.
Significance: This case limited Chevron deference by introducing the "major questions doctrine," where courts are reluctant to defer to agencies on issues of great significance without clear congressional authorization.
5. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts: The EPA issued regulations requiring power plants to control hazardous air pollutants without considering costs.
Issue: Did the EPA reasonably interpret the Clean Air Act?
Holding: The Court ruled that EPA’s interpretation was unreasonable because it ignored costs.
Significance: This case shows that Chevron deference is not automatic; courts will reject an agency interpretation if it is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Summary of Key Points in Chevron Deference
Chevron establishes a two-step framework for courts reviewing agency statutory interpretations.
Deference is given only when the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Mead limits Chevron to formal agency actions or those with force of law.
Brand X affirms that agencies can change interpretations under Chevron.
King introduces limits for “major questions” that courts decide themselves.
Michigan v. EPA demonstrates courts can reject unreasonable interpretations despite Chevron.
RELATED Blog
0 comments