Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, and Major Questions: A Novel Framework for Judicial Deference to Agency Legal Interpretations

Authors

Charles A. Bower

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a watershed moment for administrative law. For the first time, the Court explicitly invoked the Major Questions Doctrine by name in a majority opinion. The usage of the Major Questions Doctrine is important on its own, but equally important is the fact that the longstanding Chevron doctrine played no part in the majority’s analysis. The absence of Chevron doctrine in West Virginia in favor of the Major Questions Doctrine continues a trend where the Court has been relying on Chevron less often. The threats the Chevron faces do not appear to be ending with West Virginia either. In 2024, the Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the question presented is whether the Court should overrule Chevron entirely. With the Major Questions Doctrine on the rise and the fate of Chevron in doubt, now is the perfect time to rethink how judicial deference to the administrative state operates. This note proposes a novel framework for judicial deference that includes Chevron, Skidmore, and the Major Questions Doctrine in an effort to balance an effective and efficient administrative state against constitutional separation of powers principles. This framework centers on the question of if the regulation at hand involves questions of “political and economic significance” to make a determination between applying either a deferential Chevron standard (if no) or the Skidmore standard (if yes).

Recommended Citation

Charles A. Bower, Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, and Major Questions: A Novel Framework for Judicial Deference to Agency Legal Interpretations, 89 Brook. L. Rev. 1185 (2024).
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol89/iss4/4