Chevron Deference: A Legal Principle for Reviewing Agency Decisions

Introduction

Chevron deference is a legal principle that requires courts to give deference to the interpretation of statutes by administrative agencies. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Two-Part Test

Chevron deference consists of a two-part test:

1. Has Congress spoken directly to the precise issue at hand? If Congress has not spoken directly to the issue, the agency's interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference.
2. Is the agency's interpretation of the statute reasonable? If the agency's interpretation is reasonable, the court must defer to it even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently.

Controversy

Chevron deference has been controversial. Some critics argue that it gives too much power to administrative agencies and that it allows agencies to make policy decisions that should be left to the courts or Congress. Others argue that Chevron deference is necessary to ensure that agencies have the flexibility to interpret statutes in a way that is consistent with their expertise and experience.

Recent Cases

Chevron deference has come up for instance in efforts to use the 1970 Clean Air Act to prevent greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Court left open the possibility that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions under other statutes.

Conclusion

Chevron deference is a complex legal principle that has been the subject of much debate. It is a principle that requires courts to give deference to the interpretation of statutes by administrative agencies, but it also has its limits. The Supreme Court has ruled that Chevron deference does not apply when Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at hand or when the agency's interpretation of the statute is unreasonable.