Email: Learning Journey: Deference Day 1

Next

 

  Today, we’ll introduce judicial deference.

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

View in Browser  

 

Welcome to the first of four installments of Ballotpedia’s Learning Journey on judicial deference!  The term deference refers to the administrative law principle by which courts are expected to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation when the legislative language is silent or ambiguous. Deference is widely regarded as a major factor in the expansion of administrative agency powers.  This Learning Journey guides you through the history, application, and uncertain future of deference. Let’s get started!   Deference in action Deference applies in cases of judicial review, e.g., when a plaintiff accuses an agency of unlawful action. In such cases, the court must decide whether the agency action in question was authorized.  Since Congress often passes broad legislation that requires agencies to fill in the details of rulemaking and enforcement, the degree of agency interpretation is a direct function of lawmakers’ imprecision in crafting statutory language.  Example: City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was a 2013 United States Supreme Court case that questioned whether courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of the extent of its own authority under a particular statute. The case questioned whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the legal authority to set time limits for local entities to approve zoning requests under the Communications Act of 1934. Plaintiffs argued that the statute did not explicitly authorize the agency to set time limits, while the FCC claimed that it had crafted a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the Act. The court ultimately deferred to the FCC’s interpretation of the Act, arguing that the power to set time limits fell within the agency’s jurisdiction.  Read On: Deference City of Arlington v. FCC   Types of deference The United States Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing agency actions. The three most common forms of deference include Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference. Let’s take a closer look at each of these deference doctrines: Chevron deference: The Chevron doctrine is named for the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in which the United States Supreme Court established the legal test to determine whether a court should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Under Chevron, courts are expected to refrain from imposing their own statutory interpretation unless the agency’s interpretation is determined to be unreasonable.  Skidmore deference: The Skidmore doctrine applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. Skidmore deference allows a federal court to determine the appropriate level of deference for each case based on the agency's ability to support its position. The United States Supreme Court developed Skidmore deference in the 2000 case Christensen v. Harris County and named the doctrine for the court’s 1944 decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Auer deference: A federal court applies Auer deference, also known as Seminole Rock deference, when it yields to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous regulation that the agency itself has promulgated. In order for a court to apply Auer deference, the underlying statute must be unclear and the agency's interpretation must be deemed reasonable. The United States Supreme Court first described the underlying rationale for Auer deference in the 1945 case Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. The court went on to develop and implement the deference principle in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins. Read On: Chevron Deference Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Antonin Scalia Skidmore Deference Christensen v. Harris County Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Auer Deference Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. Auer v. Robbins   What’s next? The next stage of our Learning Journey will review key arguments that support and oppose the application of deference. Stay tuned! Review Check out the following Ballotpedia pages to dive deeper into today’s key concepts: Deference City of Arlington v. FCC Chevron deference Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Antonin Scalia Skidmore deference Christensen v. Harris County Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Auer deference Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. Auer v. Robbins