Sharp Divide Over Chevron Deference

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in City of Arlington v. FCC reveals a sharp divide—not along the usual ideological lines—among the justices over when an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity is entitled to deference under the Chevron framework that the Court adopted in 1984. A quick overview:

In his majority opinion for five justices (himself, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan), Justice Scalia holds that “an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of its regulatory authority (that is, its jurisdiction)” is entitled to Chevron deference. Among other things, Scalia rejects as a “mirage” the “distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretations.” (Slip op. at 5.) Rather, “the question in every case is, simply, whether the statutory text forecloses the agency’s assertion of authority, or not.” (Slip op. at 9.)

In dissent, the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, sets as backdrop the “danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state” and the role of Chevron deference as “a powerful weapon in an agency’s regulatory arsenal.” (Dissent at 4.) The Chief doesn’t posit a line between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional interpretations, but instead maintains that an agency interpretation warrants Chevron deference “only if Congress has delegated authority to definitively interpret a particular ambiguity in a particular manner.” (Dissent at 11.) Whereas the Chief Justice defends his approach as consistent with the Court’s precedents (“We have never faltered in our understanding of this straightforward principle”), Scalia says that the Chief’s approach “proposes … a massive revision of our Chevron jurisprudence.”

On a first skim, Justice Breyer’s separate opinion concurring in the judgment seems to me more consistent with the Chief’s general approach. So that would mean that there is a 5-to-4 divide on the Court.

There will surely be vigorous discussion and debate among administrative-law experts over this ruling.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More