deferential. The court will Fund: reversing the interpretation within the only reverse the agency’s agency interpretation scope of ambiguity, may interpretation if it goes under step 2 because nevertheless be unreasonable beyond the scope of it went beyond the whatever ambiguity the scope of ambiguity statute contained. Judicial Review- Statutory NLRB v Hearst: NLRB For mixed question of law and Interpretation made an fact there is some deference interpretation of due to expert agency. The “employees” in the court must inquire whether statute during an agency’s application of the adjudication. The statutory term in a particular court reviewing said context has warrant in the that such issue is a record and a reasonable basis mixed question of in law law and fact (if law only= de novo) Judicial Review- Statutory Agency interpretations Skidmore v Swift & The weight of the agency’s Interpretation through informal rulings Co.: (less deferential, judgment in a particular case may require chevron agency opponents will depend upon analysis, or Skidmore, want this) The thoroughness evident which was the pre-chevron in its consideration test for deference to The validity of its statutory interpretation. reasoning The consistency with earlier and later pronouncements All those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control Statutory Interpretation- Interpretations such as Christensen v Harris Scalia concurrence: Chevron What test applies? those in opinion letters, County: DOL applies not only to agency like policy statements, interpreted a statute regulations but to manuals, enforcement in an opinion letter. authoritative agency positions guidelines, all of which lack set forth in a variety of other the force of law, do not formats. warrant chevron deference. Justice Breyer dissent: Instead, skidmore is chevron should apply applied. Statutory Interpretation- Step Zero Test: Mead United States v Mead Justice scalia dissent: very What test applies? proposes that chevron Corp.: where the disappointed/upset that court deference is appropriate if: customs office issued is basically displacing chevron (1) Congress delegated a ruling letter which authority to the agency provides guidance on generally to make rules the interptation or carrying the force of law , application of (2) The agency’s customs laws. interpretations claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority
deferential. The court will only reverse the agency’s interpretation if it goes beyond the scope of whatever ambiguity the statute contained. Fund: reversing the agency interpretation under step 2 because it went beyond the scope of ambiguity interpretation within the scope of ambiguity, may nevertheless be unreasonable Judicial Review- Statutory Interpretation NLRB v Hearst: NLRB made an interpretation of “employees” in the statute during an adjudication. The court reviewing said that such issue is a mixed question of law and fact (if law only= de novo) For mixed question of law and fact there is some deference due to expert agency. The court must inquire whether agency’s application of the statutory term in a particular context has warrant in the record and a reasonable basis in law Judicial Review- Statutory Interpretation Agency interpretations through informal rulings may require chevron analysis, or Skidmore, which was the pre-chevron test for deference to statutory interpretation. Skidmore v Swift & Co.: (less deferential, agency opponents want this) The weight of the agency’s judgment in a particular case will depend upon The thoroughness evident in its consideration The validity of its reasoning The consistency with earlier and later pronouncements All those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control Statutory Interpretation- What test applies? Interpretations such as those in opinion letters, like policy statements, manuals, enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law, do not warrant chevron deference. Instead, skidmore is applied. Christensen v Harris County: DOL interpreted a statute in an opinion letter. Scalia concurrence: Chevron applies not only to agency regulations but to authoritative agency positions set forth in a variety of other formats. Justice Breyer dissent: chevron should apply Statutory Interpretation- What test applies? Step Zero Test: Mead proposes that chevron deference is appropriate if: (1) Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law , (2) The agency’s interpretations claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority United States v Mead Corp.: where the customs office issued a ruling letter which provides guidance on the interptation or application of customs laws. Justice scalia dissent: very disappointed/upset that court is basically displacing chevron
Administrative%20Law%20-%20Glicksman%20-%20Fall%202010.docx