Total run time:
When and how do Courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own statute? A 1984 landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., established what is known as Chevron doctrine, which says that a court must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own statute. This standard has been used ever since by courts in administrative law cases. Recently, the Chevron doctrine has come into questions not only by academics but by the Supreme Court and other judges. What additional forms of deference do judges use (Auer, Skidmore, etc)? What does the Administrative Procedure Act say about whether courts should defer to agencies? What is the relationship between administrative agencies and Article III judges? Are administrative law judges (ALJs) constitutional?
Professor Gary Lawson explains that administrative agency courts have been around for as long as agencies have existed. Their role in determining and granting benefits is uncontroversial. However, what happens if these courts start administering fine
Professor Gary Lawson explains that administrative agency courts have been around for as long as agencies have existed. Their role in determining and granting benefits is uncontroversial. However, what happens if these courts start administering fines and revoking property rights? Can this only be done by a true Article III court? Professor Lawson discusses the recent example of the Patent, Trial and Appeal Board, staffed by administrative officers.
Professor Gary Lawson is the Philip S. Beck Professor at Boston University School of Law.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
Total run time: