It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!
Brand X deference
| What is deference in the context of the administrative state? Deference, or judicial deference, is a principle of judicial review in which a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing federal agency actions, including Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference. Learn about state-level responses to deference here. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Judicial control |
|
•Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Agency control • Executive control •Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
| This article is a sprout; we plan on making it grow in the future. If you would like to help it grow, please consider donating to Ballotpedia. |
Brand X deference is a federal deference doctrine that requires courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes even when the interpretations conflict with prior court precedent. The doctrine is drawn from the 2005 United States Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.[1]
Background
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services concerned an application of the Chevron deference doctrine. Under Chevron deference, federal courts must defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute. Brand X built on Chevron’s foundation by requiring courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes even when courts previously held contrary views.[1]
Noteworthy events
Justice Thomas labels deference doctrine inconsistent with the Constitution (2020)
United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on February 24, 2020, stated that he would reconsider his 2005 opinion in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that gave rise to the Brand X deference doctrine.[2]
Thomas dissented from the majority’s decision not to hear Baldwin v. United States, a case challenging Brand X deference. He argued that Brand X deference appears to be “inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and traditional tools of statutory interpretation.”[2]
Justice Thomas argued that both deference precedents undermined the requirements of the United States Constitution. He wrote, “Regrettably, Brand X has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism. Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations. Brand X may well follow from Chevron, but in so doing, it poignantly lays bare the flaws of our entire executive-deference jurisprudence. Even if the Court is not willing to question Chevron itself, at the very least, we should consider taking a step away from the abyss by revisiting Brand X.”[2]
See also
External links
Footnotes
