Deference disputes in lower courts post-Chevron
Background: What is Chevron Deference?
The Chevron deference doctrine comes from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It sets a two-step framework for courts reviewing federal agency interpretations of statutes:
Step 1: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise issue? If yes, courts must follow Congressional intent.
Step 2: If the statute is ambiguous or silent, courts defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is “reasonable.”
This doctrine gives administrative agencies significant power to interpret laws within their expertise, promoting stability and respecting agency policymaking.
Post-Chevron: Deference Disputes in Lower Courts
Since Chevron, many disputes have arisen in lower courts over when and how to apply deference to agency interpretations, especially in environmental and administrative law cases. Courts wrestle with:
Whether Chevron applies to certain agency actions
The level of deference owed (Chevron vs. Skidmore vs. no deference)
Interpretation of ambiguous statutes in light of agency expertise
Limits on deference when constitutional or major questions are involved
Important Case Laws Illustrating Deference Disputes Post-Chevron
1. United States v. Mead Corp. (2001)
Facts:
The Court considered whether Chevron deference applied to U.S. Customs Service’s tariff classification rulings, which were issued in formal rulings but not through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that Chevron deference does not automatically apply to all agency interpretations.
Instead, Skidmore deference, which depends on the agency’s persuasiveness and expertise, may apply when agency interpretations lack formal procedures.
Significance:
This case limited automatic Chevron deference, making courts analyze the context and formality of agency action before deferring.
2. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts:
The issue was whether subsidies under the Affordable Care Act applied to insurance purchased on federal exchanges, where the statutory language was ambiguous.
Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court declined to apply Chevron deference, instead interpreting the statute de novo.
The Court reasoned that the issue was of “deep economic and political significance” and thus required clear congressional authorization to defer to the agency.
Significance:
Introduced the “major questions doctrine,” limiting Chevron deference in cases with significant policy implications.
3. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts:
The EPA issued rules regulating hazardous air pollutants from power plants but failed to consider costs adequately.
Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court held EPA’s interpretation unreasonable and rejected Chevron deference.
The Court emphasized that agency decisions must consider costs when required by statute.
Significance:
Shows courts applying deference selectively, particularly when agency decisions ignore important statutory factors.
4. National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services (2005)
Facts:
The FCC classified cable modem service under telecommunications law differently than prior courts.
Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed Chevron deference can overturn prior judicial interpretations if the statute is ambiguous.
Deference was granted because FCC interpretations have “force of law.”
Significance:
Affirmed Chevron’s strength but clarified it applies mainly to formal agency actions.
5. Kisor v. Wilkie (2019)
Facts:
The Court reviewed whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, a doctrine called Auer deference.
Court’s Holding:
The Court upheld Auer deference but narrowed its scope with strict criteria.
Courts must exhaust all traditional tools of statutory interpretation before deferring.
Significance:
Clarified and limited judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own rules, increasing scrutiny in lower courts.
Summary of Judicial Trends Post-Chevron in Lower Courts
| Issue | Judicial Approach/Standard | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| When to apply Chevron? | Depends on statutory ambiguity & agency expertise | Mead Corp. |
| Major Questions Doctrine | No deference on major policy issues without clear congressional intent | King v. Burwell |
| Agency Ignoring Statutory Factors | Courts may reject agency interpretation if unreasonable | Michigan v. EPA |
| Deference to agency rules (Auer) | Limited, requires careful interpretation | Kisor v. Wilkie |
| Overturning prior court rulings | Chevron can allow agency reinterpretation | Brand X |
Conclusion
Since Chevron, lower courts have developed nuanced standards for when to defer to agency interpretations:
Not all agency interpretations get Chevron deference.
Courts increasingly scrutinize agency actions involving major policy decisions.
There is a growing balance between respecting agency expertise and protecting statutory and constitutional boundaries.
The doctrines of Skidmore and Auer offer alternative, often narrower, deference standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments