facebook linkedin twitter

Courts Must Continue to Defer to Agency’s Interpretation of Regulations

June 26, 2019 by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON – A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a series of legal precedents instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.

The ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, is a significant development in administrative law, and came to pass only because Chief Justice John Roberts broke with his conservative colleagues who were more than ready to chuck the precedents and place new limits on the power of federal agencies.

The issue of overturning precedents has been of keen interest to many observers who are watching to see how far and how fast the newly more conservative court is willing to go in its decisions — ever mindful that a challenge to Roe v. Wade may be in the wings.

The Auer deference doctrine was named after the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, is premised on the idea that federal agencies are subject matter experts in their respective areas and are therefore better suited than judges to interpret their own regulations and gaps that may be found in current federal law.

As far as Justice Kagan was concerned, this makes perfect sense.

“Want to know what a rule means? Ask its author,” she wrote.

But the doctrine has been facing growing criticism in recent years from conservatives inside and outside the court, who contend the precedents have given the agencies far too much power.

Kagan appeared to try to meet the dissenters in the case halfway, suggesting that deference should only apply in cases where a regulation is truly ambiguous and the agency reading of it reasonable.

If a regulation isn’t ambiguous, the justice said, the “regulation then must mean what it means—and the court must give it effect, as the court would any law.”

Kagan conceded that regulations can make “the eyes glaze over,” but maintained “hard interpretative conundrums … can often be solved.”

Kagan said that when it applies, Auer deference gives federal agencies significant leeway in deciding what their rules mean.

“But that phrase ‘when it applies’ is important … because it often doesn’t,” she concluded.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch was far from pleased even with that assurance.

Instead, he said, writing for himself and his fellow dissenters on the court, the majority had left the Auer doctrine on “life support.”

He said the “new and nebulous qualifications and limitations” that his colleagues in the majority imposed mean the doctrine of agency deference “emerges maimed and enfeebled — in truth, zombified.”

The case before the justices was filed by James Kisor, a Vietnam veteran who applied for benefits for his post-traumatic-stress disorder.

The Department of Veterans Affairs agreed with Kisor that he suffers from PTSD but rejected his request for benefits dating back to 1983. When Kisor appealed the VA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals deferred to the VA’s interpretation of its own regulation and sided with the agency.

Last year Kisor appealed to the Supreme Court for help. While the majority refused to dispense of the Auer doctrine declined to overrule the Auer doctrine, it did give the disabled veteran a partial victory, sending his case back to the Federal Circuit for it to take another look.

The case is Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15.

Supreme Court

October 22, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices To Hear Texas Abortion Case on Monday Nov. 1

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear a challenge from the federal government and abortion providers to Texas' 6-week abortion... Read More

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear a challenge from the federal government and abortion providers to Texas' 6-week abortion ban on Nov. 1, but will leave the law in place while it considers the cases, the court said on Friday. As is their custom, the... Read More

October 15, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Commission Finds Crisis In Senate Confirmation Process

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the... Read More

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the U.S. Supreme Court is instead calling out the Senate confirmation process for justices. In draft documents released ahead of a public meeting on Friday, the Presidential... Read More

October 14, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices Consider Whether to Reinstate Marathon Bomber’s Death Sentence

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish... Read More

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. At approximately 2:49 p.m. that Monday afternoon, the bombs detonated 14 seconds apart, killing three and injuring 264 others. At least... Read More

October 4, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Holds DC Not Entitled to Vote in Congress

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting... Read More

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House of Representatives. As is their custom, the justices did not explain the rationale behind their summary disposition of the case, though they... Read More

What's Old is New Again: Justices Back at Court for New Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany and marble courtroom that the justices abandoned more than 18 months ago because of the coronavirus pandemic. Abortion, guns and religion all are on the agenda... Read More

Abortion, Guns, Religion Top a Big Supreme Court Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning a new term Monday that also includes major cases on gun rights and religion. The court's credibility with the public also could be on the line,... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top