-Must defer to reasonable interpretation if statute unclear (See Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat’l Resources Defense Council (1984): upheld EPA’s interpretation of Clean Air Act)
-Two step approach
-Has Congress spoken directly? If yes, that is answer
-Is statute silent or ambiguous? If yes, is agency’s answer reasonable
-As result agency may be driven to state rationale as statutory interpretation
-Court not bound by Chevron to give deference but tone changes post Overton Park – don’t assume ? for court but must see if statute sufficiently vague
-Only get Chevron deference when Congress intended to delegate rulemaking authority(See U.S. v. Mead (2001): tariff classification for day planners by customs service doesn’t deserve deference b/c no intent to delegate)
-Otherwise get Skidmore deference where expertise justifies it
-Dissent (Scalia): should have applied Chevron b/c more closely approximates Congressional intent; reversing presumption of Chevron (JM thinks this is overreading)
-Skidmore deference relies on capacity and competence
-if law is non self-executing, complete delegation to agency’s authority
-Courts often don’t apply Chevron (See Leocal – INS removal for DUI because felony; SC said INS interpretation was wrong)
-But once court upholds decision as proper, agency can’t change its decision
-seems inconsistent with Chevron
-Chevron applies to interpretations that weren’t subject to notice and comment rulemaking (See Barnhart v. Walton (2002))
-SSA policy in manual is if someone goes back to work w/in 12 months they don’t get disability manuals
-SC says Chevron applies because longstanding
-Concurrence (Scalia) – ? is whether agency has authority not whether it’s longstanding
-Should Chevron apply to question of whether agency has jurisdiction to act? SC hasn’t answered yet
-Chevron doesn’t trump canon that favors construing statutes to avoid constitutional difficulties (See Rust v. Sullivan)
-Why not just have legislative rational basis standard?
-Courts take sep. of powers seriously so more likely to get deference if you explain why you like it
-Courts more likely to review individual rights/personal liberty cases (constitutional cases) than economic or political ones
-Deference goes to agency with primary responsibility of enforcing statute where interpretations of 2 agencies conflict (martin v. OSHRC)