4 ms·
> It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity) This is not an accurate description of what agencies
by tbrownaw 1y ago
> It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity)
This is not an accurate description of what agencies are meant to be experts in.
Their expertise is meant to be in how best to act within their bounds. Which is distinct from deciding what those bounds are.
- threatofrain 1y agoTheir expertise is in science.
- vlovich123 1y agoFirst, are the courts actually any better? Constitutionally they have limited jurisdiction in the first place to adjudicate administrative matters, only getting some authority in 1948 from Congress to do such administration. > In 1974 the Supreme Court stated that deference depends on an administrative interpretation being consistent with the agency's other statements and being consistent with the congressional purpose So it wasn't that the agency got to set its own bounds - it had to be consistent with all their other statements and with the congressional purpose of the body. So for example, Congress said the EPA had the power to regulate pollution sources but did not define what meant sources or specifically what regulations they could enact. Chevron said "Congress intended the EPA to figure this out so they get to do that". Loper said "actually, Congress needs to spell everything out" which is actually quite a radical idea for administrative legislation which with a stroke of a pen undoes a huge amount of legislation that had been done with Chevron in mind (& before that it was understood to be the case anyway since judges didn't even have power over administrative powers).