The Supreme Court of the United States established the legal standard for assessing whether to give deference to a government agency’s interpretation of legislation that it administers in the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The doctrine consists of a two-part test that the court, when appropriate, applies and is very deferential to government agencies. One of the most significant administrative law cases decided by the Supreme Court in the last fifty years was Chevron. It lays out procedures for evaluating an agency’s action to decide on the extent a court should defer to the agency’s interpretation of a statute.
Chevron implies that in the case of statute ambiguity, Congress implicitly delegates the authority to interpret blank fields to an agency. In a case coming before Chevron, that authority would belong to the Court; thus, the case would be ruled with the Court’s final word. The two-pronged test established by Chevron would not even begin, as was, for instance, in a more recent case (2010) of King v. Burwell (Larkin, 2016). There, the Court did not accept the agency’s statute interpretation because the issue was “a question of deep economic and political significance,” which should be assigned explicitly (Larkin, 2016, The Rise of Chevron and Deference to a Federal Agency’s Interpretation of an Act of Congress). In short, the case of King provides an answer to the question of what would be if Chevron were overruled.
Such an initiative would bring the judicial system to the pre-Chevron status quo. In particular, the agency’s opinion on the matter would still bear a significant value due to its greater knowledge and specific experience in the field (Larkin, 2016). However, it would be for the Court to decide whether to defer to the agency’s perspective and to what extent. In this regard, the agency’s opinion would be considered in the same fashion as any scholar in that field. Even if the Court construed the statute differently, it might defer to the agency’s interpretation based on its thoroughness, validity, consistency, and persuasiveness (Larkin, 2016). Meanwhile, the Court’s willingness to interfere with the process of interpretation might be short-termed due to its insufficient knowledge of particular questions. The credible argument remains valid, regardless of who has the final decision on the matter. Consequently, the decision to overrule Chevron will not matter as much in the long run.
Reference
Larkin, P. (2016). The world after Chevron. The Heritage Foundation. Web.