Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The Supreme Court of the United States established the legal standard for assessing whether to give deference to a government agencys 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 agencys action to decide on the extent a court should defer to the agencys 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 Courts 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 agencys 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 Agencys 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 agencys 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 agencys perspective and to what extent. In this regard, the agencys 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 agencys interpretation based on its thoroughness, validity, consistency, and persuasiveness (Larkin, 2016). Meanwhile, the Courts 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.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.