Taxonomy of arguments about judicial deference
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| 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 page contains the main arguments related to the judicial deference and the judicial control of the administrative state.
The appropriate role of judicial deference in the administrative state is a contested issue, focusing on the balance between agency expertise, congressional delegation, and constitutional separation of powers. The debate is generally framed in two areas: arguments against judicial deference, which view it as unconstitutional, contrary to precedent, and inconsistent with separation of powers, and arguments in favor of judicial deference, which emphasize respect for agency expertise, recognition of legislative delegation, constitutional grounding, and adherence to established legal practices.
Arguments against judicial deference
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Deference is unconstitutional
- Claim: Article III forbids courts from exercising deference
- Claim: Chevron deference creates opportunities for systemic bias
- Claim: Deference prevents judicial review
- Claim: Chevron deference violates the nondelegation doctrine
2. Argument: Deference violates separation of powers principles
- Claim: Deference violates the separation of powers
- Claim: Auer deference violates separation of powers
3. Argument: Deference violates legal practices and precedent
- Claim: Chevron (1984) was a break from the legal practice of the early American Republic
- Claim: Precedents establishing the scope of the writ of mandamus cut against the Chevron doctrine
- Claim: The APA was created with the idea that questions of law would be subject to de novo judicial review and limit judicial deference
- Claim: Deference abandons a legal-interpretive tradition dating to 17th-Century English courts
- Claim: The use of Chevron deference to defer to an agency’s informal adjudication procedures denies due process
4. Argument: Deference is the product of bad jurisprudence
Arguments in favor of judicial deference
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Deference respects expertise
- Claim: Deference allows for expertise
- Claim: Agencies have the discretion to consider relevant factors during decision making
2. Argument: Deference produces better outcomes
- Claim: Chevron deference is better than a case-by-case approach
- Claim: Chevron doctrine allows for agency flexibility
3. Argument: Deference is constitutional
- Claim: Chevron deference does not create judicial bias in favor of agencies
- Claim: The nondelegation doctrine allows Chevron deference
- Claim: Judges may evaluate policy outcomes to make decisions
- Claim: Chevron reconciles the administrative state with constitutional law principles
4. Argument: Deference recognizes congressional delegations of authority to agencies
- Claim: Statutory ambiguity should be understood as a delegation of authority
- Claim: Sometimes courts fulfill their judicial duty by interpreting ambiguous statutes as vesting power in agencies
5. Argument: Deference is required by separation of powers
6. Argument: Deference adheres to legal practices and precedent
- Claim: Chevron (1984) did not make new law
- Claim: Chevron is a legitimate framework built on the tradition of deference in mandamus cases
- Claim: Deference is the law under the APA
- Claim: United States Supreme Court precedents deferring to agency factual determinations led to deferring to legal determinations
- Claim: Arbitrary-and-capricious review requires less of agencies than some judges believe
