*#'#$#&&%)(
8J 64F8F <A @8E<64A ;<FGBEL ;4I8 :4EA8E87 G;8 4@BHAG B9
4GG8AG<BA 9EB@ 46478@<6F ?4JL8EF 4A7 6BHEGF 4F G;8 *HCE8@8
Court’s 1984 decision -*;743 ! 3( ; &9:7&1 *84:7(*8
*+*38*4:3(.13(
.;<?8G;8786<F<BAJ4F<A<G<4??L;4A7877BJA
J<G;BHG @H6; 94A94E8 <G JBH?7 8I8AGH4??L 8@8E:8 4F 4
“E8IB?HG<BA4EL”CE86878AG9BE=H7<6<4?7898E8A68G;4GBI8EF;47BJ87
G;8 CE<BE BHEG 786<F<BAF E8:4E7<A: =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 GB
47@<A<FGE4G<I8 4:8A6<8F
+B74L G;8E8 <F ?<GG?8 7BH5G G;4G 98J
!
%8J0BE>,A<I8EF<GL*6;BB?B9#4J
04?8,A<I8EF<GL
+;4A>F
GBG;8BA
)B58EG
"4GM@4AA9BE;<F:H<74A68<AG;8E8F84E6;<A:4A7JE<G<A:B9
G;<FABG8
?FBG;4A>LBHGB$<6;48?#8AB999BE;<F;8?C9H?6B@@8AGF
,
*
I4A !
E<77?8 ;8IEBA’s Consensus ,
#
)-
1271, 1279 (2008) (“-*;743
7<7FC4E>4:8AH<A8E8IB?HG<BA—5L6;4??8A:<A:G;8E8<:A<A:CE<A6<C?8FB968EG4<AGL
and finality in statutory interpretation.”); John F. Manning, 4389.9:9.43&197:(9:7*
&3):).(.&1*+*7*3(*94,*3(>39*757*9&9.4384+,*3(>:1*8&#,$
#
)-
14 (1996) (“Exhaustive academic commentary has scrutinized -*;743’s
?8:<G<@46L 4A7 8KC?BE87 G;8 F88@<A:?L <AAH@8E45?8 DH8FG<BAF G;4G 4E<F8 9EB@ <GF
3
!
*HCE8@8BHEG786<F<BAF;4I8588A4F<@C46G9H?4F-*;743
$H6;
B9G;<F<@C46G<F7H8GBG;8946GG;4G-*;743<FB9G8A6BAF<78E875L
F6;B?4EF GB ;4I8 FHCC?4AG87 4?? CE<BE *HCE8@8 BHEG 786<F<BAF
E8:4E7<A: 4:8A6L 7898E8A68 J<G; 4 F<A:H?4E CEBGB6B? 9BE 6BHEGF GB
4??B64G8 7898E8A68
6478@<6 94F6<A4G<BA J<G; -*;743 6BA=HE8F 4A
<@4:8 B9 G;8 FH778A 8@8E:8A68 B9 4 5?46> ;B?8 <A G;8 68AG8E B9 4
6BAFG8??4G<BA B9 CE88K<FG<A: 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F G;8 J8<:;G B9 G;8
-*;743 CE86878AG FH6>87 <A G;8 B?78E =HE<FCEH78A68 E8?4G<A: GB
=H7<6<4?7898E8A684A76B??4CF87<G<AGB4F<A:?8HA<9BE@7898E8A68
E8:<@8
+;4GA4EE4G<I8;BJ8I8E<F<A6B@C?8G8
%H@8EBHFFG4EF <A
G;8 CE8-*;743 :4?4KL 6BAG<AH8 GB F8EI8 4F 68AG8EF B9 :E4I<GL
F8C4E4G84A74C4EG9EB@G;8-*;7435?46>;B?8
+;4GA4EE4G<I84?FB
94<?F GB 6BAF<78E <9 4A7 J;8A 4?G8EA4G<I8 7898E8AG<4? FG4A74E7F
F;BH?7584CC?<87GB4:8A6L78G8E@<A4G<BAF
A?<:;GB9G;<FE84?<GL
G;8*HCE8@8BHEGF;BH?778I8?BC4EB5HFG5HG9?8K<5?8FLFG8@9BE
4CC?L<A:G;84CCEBCE<4G8?8I8?B9=H7<6<4?7898E8A68
*<A68 G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG 786<787 -*;743 <A <G ;4F
6BAG<AH87 GB 4CC?L F8I8E4? 4?G8EA4G<I8 9BE@F B9 7898E8A68 <A 4
AH@58E B9 64F8F
+;8 @BFG 6B@@BA?L 7<F6HFF87 4?G8EA4G<I8
application.”); Cass R. Sunstein, &<&3))2.3.897&9.43+9*7;8IEBA&#,$
#
)-
2071, 2075 (1990) (“[T]he importance of the case far exceeds that of the Supreme
Court’s more celebrated constitutional rulings on the subject of separation ofCBJ8EF
in the 1980s, probably even if all of these are taken together.”); Kenneth W. Starr,
:).(.&1*;.*<.39-*489;8IEBA7& 0# !
&% )
, 307 (1986) (“"*72439
$&30** 4A7 -*;743 ;4I8 ABA8G;8?8FF CEB7H687 4 E8IB?HG<BA <A 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 ?4J
+;8L;4I8ABGBA?L6;4A:874A7E89<A87C4EG<6H?4E7B6GE<A8F5HG@BE8<@CBEG4AG?L
G;8L;4I86;4A:87—4A7J<??6BAG<AH8 GB6;4A:8—G;8J4L6BHEGF6BA68<I8 B9G;8<E
relationship to administrative agencies.”).
+;B@4F!
$<?8F4FF)
*HAFG8<A4:),*8&0**,:1&947>41.(>325.7.(&1
3;*89.,&9.434+;8IEBA,
#
)-
CEB6?4<@<A:-*;743GB58
the “most cited case in modern public law”).
**United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 237 (“The Court, on the other hand, said
ABG;<A: <A -*;743 GB 8?<@<A4G8 0.)247*’s recognition of various justifications for
7898E8A68 78C8A7<A: BA FG4GHGBEL 6<E6H@FG4A68F 4A7 4:8A6L 46G<BA -*;743 J4F
F<@C?L 4 64F8 E86B:A<M<A: G;4G 8I8A J<G;BHG 8KCE8FF 4HG;BE<GL GB 9<?? 4 FC86<9<6
FG4GHGBEL:4C6<E6H@FG4A68FCB<AG<A:GB<@C?<6<G6BA:E8FF<BA4?78?8:4G<BACE8F8AG4
particularly insistent call for deference.”).
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
7898E8A68FG4A74E7J4F9<EFG4EG<6H?4G87<A 0.)247*;<.+94
J;8Ee the deference afforded to an agency’s decision is limited to
that decision’s “CBJ8E GB C8EFH478
” Skidmore’s 6BAG<AH87
CEB@<A8A68 <F 7H8 GB !3.9*)9&9*8;*&)J;8E8<A G;8 *HCE8@8
BHEG 8KC?<6<G?L E88FG45?<F;87 0.)247* 7898E8A68 4F 4A 8K68CG<BA
GB-*;7437898E8A68J;8AG;84:8A6L<AG8ECE8G4G<BA7B8FABG64EEL
G;8 5<A7<A: 9BE68 B9 ?4J
0.)247* 7898E8A68 ;BJ8I8E <F ABG G;8
BA?L9BE@B94:8A6L7898E8A68G;4G;4FFHEI<I87G;8CHE:<A:J8<:;G
B9 -*;743
A G;8<E 8@C<E<64? FGH7L B9 CBFG-*;743*HCE8@8
BHEG 786<F<BAF 477E8FF<A: =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 'EB98FFBEF .<??<4@
%
F>E<7:84A7#4HE8A48E9BHA7G;4G6BHEGF6BAG<AH8GB4CC?L4
I4E<8GL B9 7<FG<A6G 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F J;<6; CE874G8 -*;743
'EB98FFBEF F>E<7:8 4A7 48E :EBHC87 846; B9 G;8F8 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7F <AGB 64G8:BE<8F B9 7898E8A68 A4@87 49G8E G;8 BE<:<A4G<A:
64F84A7C?4687G;8@BA46BAG<AHH@B97898E8A68466BE7<A:GBG;8
?8I8? B9 F6EHG<AL 4CC?<87 5L G;8 6BHEGF
+;<F 6BAG<AHH@ B9
7898E8A68<FE8CEB7H68758?BJ4A74EE4A:879EB@?84FG7898E8AG<4?
GB@BFG7898E8AG<4?
x “AG< 898E8A68” .;<?8 ABG 4FFB6<4G87 J<G; 4AL
C4EG<6H?4E64F8G;8F864F8F<AIB?I8G;8BHEG47BCG<A:
4 64ABA B9 6BAFGEH6G<BA G;4G 6HGF 4:4<AFG G;8 ?<G<:4G<BA
CBF<G<BA B9 G;8 4:8A6L <A DH8FG<BA
+;<F @4L B66HE <A
6E<@<A4?64F8FJ;8AG;8EH?8B9?8A<GL<F4CC?<874FJ8??
4F <A 68EG4<A 64F8F J;8E8 G;8 64ABA B9 6BAFG<GHG<BA4?
avoidance defeats the government’s proposed
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 4 FG4GHG8
AG<7898E8A68 4?FB B66HEF
,
*
)4G
,
*
)4G
.<??<4@ %
F>E<7:8 !E
#4HE8A 48E -* 439.3::2 4+ *+*7*3(* :57*2*
4:79 7*&92*394+,*3(>9&9:947>39*757*9&9.438+742;8IEBA944@74A&
#
!
)4G
3
!
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
J;8A G;8 BHEG 9<A7F G;4G G;8 “8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8”
8K68CG<BAGB=H7<6<4?7898E8A684CC?<8F
No Deference: Unlike anti-deference where the Court will
analyze the statute in ways that frequently cut against the
interpretation of federal agencies, under the ³extraordinary
case´ exception to judicial deference, the court engages in de
novo review of the statute at issue.
Skidmore: 11 The deference afforded to an agency
interpretation expands and contracts based on the agency
GHFLVLRQ¶VSHUVXDVLYHSRZHU
-*;743 FG45?<F;8F GJBFG8C 4A4?LF<F CEBI<7<A: 9BE
7898E8A68 GB E84FBA45?8 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF <9
FG4GHGBEL?4A:H4:8<F9<EFG9BHA7GB584@5<:HBHF
*9- 87&*1 485.9&1 ; &9.43&1 &'47 *1&9.438 4&7)
?45BEFC86<9<6 7898E8A68 E8:<@8 F<@<?4E GB -*;743
J;8E8<A 6BHEGF 7898E GB E84FBA45?8 4:8A6L
<AG8ECE8G4G<BAF9BHA7GB586BAF<FG8AGJ<G;G;8FG4GHG8
&9.43&1 :++1*7 4A7 &<(:8 G4KFC86<9<6 7898E8A68
E8:<@8G;4G499<E@F4:8A6L<AG8ECE8G4G<BAFB9G;8FG4GHG8
<9 G;8L <@C?8@8AG 4 BA:E8FF<BA4? @4A74G8 <A FB@8
E84FBA45?8@4AA8E
*2.341* 4(0 E8?4G<I8?L FGEBA: 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68
499BE787 GB 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF B9 G;8<E BJA
E8:H?4G<BAF
:79.88#7.,-9+;8 FGEBA:8FG 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68
G <F
499BE787 GB 8K86HG<I8 46G<BAF BA 9BE8<:A 4994<EF 4A7
A4G<BA4?F86HE<GL
0.)247*,
*
4G
;8IEBA,
*
A6
I
%4GHE4?)8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
Beth Isr. Hosp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., ,
*
Nat’l Muffler Dealers Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 440 U.S. 472 (1979); Fawcus
$46;
B
I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
BJ?8FI
*8@<AB?8)B6>*4A7B
,
*
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
+;8F8 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F ;4I8 :<I8A E<F8 GB ?4E:8?L
F8?96BAG4<A87 FGE4A7F B9 *HCE8@8 BHEG =HE<FCEH78A68 E8?4G87 GB
=H7<6<4? 7898E8A68
BE <AFG4A68 J;<?8 G;8 *9- 87&*1 4A7 &9.43&1
:++1*77898E8A684CC84EF<@<?4EGBG;4GB9-*;74364F8F<AIB?I<A:
46G<BAF5LG;8%4G<BA4?#45BE)8?4G<BAFB4E7“%#)”6<G84?@BFG
8K6?HF<I8?L GB *9- 87&*1 E4G;8E G;4A -*;743
*<@<?4E?L &9.43&1
:++1*7 4ABG;8E 8K4@C?8 B9 4 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7 G;4G <@CBF8F 4
“E84FBA45<?<GL” FG4A74E7 BA 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF FGBB7 4?BA8 4F
G;8 FBHE68 B9 7898E8A68 499BE787 GB G;8 AG8EA4? )8I8AH8 *8EI<68
)* 4A7 +E84FHEL 8C4EG@8AG J;8A <AG8ECE8G<A: CBEG<BAF B9 G;8
G4K6B78
8FC<G8G;8“E8IB?HG<BA4EL”A4GHE8B9;8IEBA@4ALB9
G;8F8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F 6BAG<AH8 GB 58 <@C?8@8AG87 5L G;8
BHEG
+;8F8 7898E8AG<4? FG4A74E7F 4E8 ?4E:8?L 6BE7BA87 B99 9EB@
BA84ABG;8EJ<G;64F8FHA78EBA87898E8AG<4?FG4A74E7E4E8?L6<G<A:
GB 64F8F 9EB@ BG;8E FG4A74E7F
+;8 5BHA74E<8F 58GJ88A G;8F8
7898E8A68 F<?BF ;BJ8I8E E8@4<AF ?4E:8?L HA6?84E 4A7 @4AL
4:8A6<8F 4E8 ?89G J<G; ?<GG?8 :H<74A68 BA J;4G 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68
G;8<E46G<BAJ<??E868<I89EB@4E8I<8J<A:6BHEG
,A<G87*G4G8FI
HEG<FF.E<:;GKC
BEC
,
*
F>E<7:848E8:57&note 9, at 1106 (citation omitted) (“Although the Court has
FB@8G<@8F<AIB>87 -*;7437898E8A689BE%#)BE78EF<G7<7ABG7B FB<A :(.*114
743 #4708 3( ; . . . Instead, the Court briefly noted the ‘considerable
7898E8A68’ it has long accorded the Board’s judgments pursuant to ‘its charge to
78I8?BC A4G<BA4? ?45BE CB?<6L.’ GF CE<@4EL 6<G4G<BA J4F GB *9- 87&*1 485.9&1 ;
.’”).
) 4G 09 (“[T]he Court rarely applies -*;743 GB )* <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF
9 4
7898E8A68 E8:<@8 <F 4CC?<87 <G <F HFH4??L G;8 CE8-*;743 E8:<@8 4FFB6<4G87 J<G;
&9.43&1:++1*7*&1*78;!3.9*)9&9*8.”).
,H8EI
)B55<AF,
*
E8?L<A:BA4?<A8B964F8F54F87BA
*2.341*4(07898E8A684A76<G<A:GB-*;7431<IBGB9F>L*=7*11<IBGB9F>LI
"8EEL
*
G
6<G<A::79.88#7.,-9GBFHCCBEt the Court’s deference to
the Secretary of State on the issue of listing “Israel” as a place of birth on a U.S.
C4FFCBEG
***,Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 517 U.S. 781, 787
E8?L<A:BA*9-87&*17898E8A68GBHC;B?74A%#)BE78EE8DH<E<A:8@C?BL8E
GB 684F8 4A7 78F<FG 9EB@ HA94<E ?45BE CE46G<68F 4A7 B@<GG<A: 4AL 7<F6HFF<BA B9
-*;743
3
!
+;<FABG84E:H8FG;4GABGBA?LF;BH?7G;8F87<998E8AG 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7F C8EF<FG 5HG 4?FB G;4G 6BHEGF @HFG 78I8?BC 4 FLFG8@ 9BE
4CC?L<A: G;8 7<998E8AG 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F
+;8 ABG8 8A7F 5L
CEBCBF<A:454?4A6<A:G8FGG;4GG4>8F<AGB6BAF<78E4G<BAG;8CE<I4G8
interests affected and the agencies’ authority and 8KC8EG<F8 <A G;8
<FFH8HA78E6BAF<78E4G<BA4@BA:BG;8E946GBEF
+;<F C4C8E <F 7<I<787 <AGB G;E88 F86G<BAF
+;8 9<EFG F86G<BA
7<F6HFF8FG;8;<FGBEL4A7E84FBA<A:B9G;8BHEG589BE84A77HE<A:
the administrative revolution of the 1930’s and 1940s. The secG<BA
7<F6HFF8F G;8 ;<FGBEL 4A7 BE<:<AF B9 G;8F8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F <A
order to better understand the Court’s original reasoning. In the
F86BA7 F86G<BA G;BF8 ;<FGBE<64? GE8A7F 4E8 6BAGE4FG87 J<G; G;8
7898E8A6864F8FB9G;8F4A7F
.;<?8G;8BHEG’s deference
=HE<FCEH78A68 7<7 ABG 78I8?BC 4F DH<6>?L 7HE<A: G;8F8 ?4G8E
786478F G;8 BHEG 7<7 58:<A GB 6B4?8F68 4EBHA7 E8?4G<I8?L A8J
=HFG<9<64G<BAF 9BE 7898E8A68 G;4G J8E8 <A F;4EC 6BAGE4FG GB G;8
E84FBA<A: B9 84E?<8E 6BHEGF
+;8 G;<E7 F86G<BA 4E:H8F G;4G G;8E8 4E8
I4?<7 E84FBAF 9BE G;8 6BAG<AH87 8K<FG8A68 B9 G;8F8 @H?G<C?8
7898E8A68E8:<@8F4A7G;4G6BHEGFA887GB8FG45?<F;6?84ECE<A6<C?8F
9BE 4CC?L<A: 7<998E8AG 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F J;<6; 4CCEBCE<4G8?L
477E8FFG;8F<M84A76B@C?8K<GLB9G;8@B78EA47@<A<FGE4G<I8FG4G8
<I8AG;8E84?<GLB9G;8@B78EA47@<A<FGE4G<I8FG4G8B9G8AE898EE87
to sardonically as the federal government’s “9BHEG; 5E4A6;”4A7
G;8<@CEB545<?<GLB9<GF7<F4CC84E4A68<G<F45FHE7G;4GG;88AG<E8GL
'8G8E #
*GE4HFF -* 1&(* 4+ ,*3(.*8 .3 4;*732*39 *5&7&9.43 4+ 4<*78 &3) 9-*
4:79-7&3(-&#,$
#
)-
669 n.16 (1984) (“[Administrative bodies] have
586B@8 4 I8E<G45?8 9BHEG; 5E4A6; B9 BI8EA@8AG J;<6; ;4F 78E4A:87 BHE
G;E88branch legal theories.”); Stephen Breyer, -* =*(:9.;* 7&3(- )2.3.897&9.;*
(9.43 &3) 425&7&9.;* =5*79.8* )&1& #
)-
2189, 2190 (2011) (“[S]ome
have called the independent agencies a ‘headless 9BHEG; branch’ of government.”);
@<?L*
E8@8E -*!3<7.99*3)2.3.897&9.;*4389.9:9.43#
#
)-
(2014) (“The statutes, judicial decisions, and executive diE86G<I8FG;4G C8E9BE@G;8F8
9HA6G<BAF @4>8 HC 4A HAJE<GG8A 6BAFG<GHG<BA G;4G :BI8EAF G;8 9BHEG; 5E4A6; B9
government not contemplated by the written Constitution.”).
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
B94:8A6L46G<BA64A58466BHAG879BE<A4F<A:?8FG4A74E7BE8I8A
<A GJB FG4A74E7F -*;743*&) BE -*;7430.)247*
+;8
GE47<G<BA4? =HFG<9<64G<BAF 9BE 7898E8A68 @4L AB ?BA:8E 58 G;8 FB?8
=HFG<9<64G<BAF5HGG;8LE8@4<AI4?<7<A68EG4<A6<E6H@FG4A68F
+BG;<F
8A7G;8BHEGF;BH?778I8?BC454?4A6<A:G8FG9BE78G8E@<A<A:G;8
CEBC8E 4CC?<64G<BA B9 G;8F8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F
*H6; 4 G8FG G;4G
6BAF<78EFG;8CE<I4G8<AG8E8FGF49986G875LG;8786<F<BA4FJ8??4FG;8
government’s interest and agency expertise and congressional
78?8:4G<BA B9 4HG;BE<GL 4??BJF 9BE 4 6BHEGF GB 58 9?8K<5?8 4A7
E8FCBAF<I8GBG;8J<78E4A:8B94:8A6L46G<BAF
"!
+;8 F 4A7 F J<GA8FF87 4 E8IB?HG<BA <A G;8
47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8
L G;8 F G;8 BHEG CE8FH@87 G;4G
47@<A<FGE4G<I84:8A6<8FF;BH?758499BE787FB@89BE@B97898E8A68
8I8A <9 <G ;47 ABG F8GG?87 BA 4AL F<A:?8 FLFG8@ BE FG4A74E7 B9
7898E8A68
+;<F CE8FH@CG<BA B9 7898E8A68 ;BJ8I8E J4F 4A
8IB?HG<BA <A *HCE8@8 BHEG =HE<FCEH78A68 G;4G FGBB7 <A F;4EC
6BAGE4FGGBCE8%8J84?CE86878AG
')&+&)% %+')%.#)
+;8 =HE<FCEH78A68 BA G;8 E8?4G<BAF;<C 58GJ88A 6BHEGF 4A7
4:8A6<8F CE<BE GB G;8 %8J 84? <F HA6?84E
.;<?8 FG4GHG8F G;4G
)8H8? *6;<??8E -* 7& 4+ *+*7*3(* 4:798 =5*79.8* &3) 9-* 2*7,*3(* 4+ *<
*&1)2.3.897&9.;*&<$ #
)-
34 (2007) (“Indeed, by the end of
G;8 F G;8 BHEG I<8J87 7898EE<A: BA G;8F8 GLC8F B9 <FFH8F 4F 4AHAE8@4E>45?8
4A7F8?9evident principle of administrative law . . . .”).
)at 402 (“Progressives andG;8<E%8J84?8E478F68A78AGF2F<6378@4A787G;4G
6BHEGF FG4L BHG B9 G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 CEB68FF
!H7:8F G;8L 4E:H87 7<7 ABG CBFF8FF
G;88KC8EG<F8A868FF4ELGBHA78EFG4A7G;8<FFH8FG;4G4:8A6<8F;47GB477E8FF<FFH8F
?<>8G;8;L7EB?B:<64?984GHE8FB9the Ohio River Valley.”).
3
!
8FG45?<F;87 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 4:8A6<8F 9E8DH8AG?L CEBI<787 9BE FB@8
=H7<6<4? E8I<8J B9 9<A4? 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 46G<BA G;8E8 J4F AB F<A:?8
FG4GHG8BE?8:4?G;8BELG;4G6?84E?L4EG<6H?4G87G;<FE8?4G<BAF;<C
A
reviewing these early cases, the Supreme Court’s approa6; J4F
often inconsistent with precedent and the statutes’ text. On several
B664F<BAFG;8*HCE8@8BHEG<:ABE87>8L?4A:H4:89EB@8A46G<A:
statutes that limited the Court’s jurisdiction and reviewed the
47@<A<FGE4G<I846G<BA )*34;4
+;8?4JCEBI<787?<GG?8:H<74A68GB
G;8 6BHEGF <A 78G8E@<A<A: G;8 A4GHE8 B9 G;<F E8?4G<BAF;<C <A G;8
J4>8B9G;<F4@5<:H<GLG;86BHEGF4GG8@CG87GB474CG6B@@BA?4J
7B6GE<A8F GB G;8 E8I<8J B9 4:8A6L 786<F<BAF
+;8 E<F8 B9 G;8
47@<A<FGE4G<I8FG4G8G;EHFG6BHEGF <AGBG;8@<7FGB9;84G87CB?<G<64?
7854G8F J;8E8 G;8<E CE86878AG CEBI<787 <A6B@C?8G8 4A7
6BAGE47<6GBEL:H<74A68
+;8 6BHEGF <A G;<F 786478 58:4A GB G8AG4G<I8?L 4CC?L =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68 GB 68EG4<A 9BE@F B9 4:8A6L 46G<BA 5HG B9G8A E8GE84G87 GB
CE8FH@CG<BAFB9=H7<6<4?FHCE8@46L
A-.4"&11*>#&9*74;*3
;43 474:,- G;8 BHEG 6BAF<78E87 G;8 &;<B -4??8L .4G8E
+;87@<A<FGE4G<I8'EB687HE86G7<7ABG6B@8<AGB8K<FG8A68HAG<?
,Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 423 (1920) (holding that courts, not
G;8 878E4? +E478 B@@<FF<BA J8E8 GB 789<A8 HA94<E GE478 CE46G<68F 78FC<G8
?4A:H4:8 <A G;8 878E4? +E478 B@@<FF<BA 6G B9 8FG45?<F;<A: G;4G 4:8A6L
findings of fact are to be deemed “conclusive” when “supported by testimony”).
*6;<??8E8:57&note 22, at 407 (“Contemporary scholars including Ernst Freund, the
5&9*7+&2.1.&8B9G;87<F6<C?<A8J8ABJ64??47@<A<FGE4G<I8?4JE86BE787G;8HF8B94
;BFGB96B@@BA?4J7B6GE<A8FGB6;4??8A:84:8A6L46G<BAF74@4:846G<BAF<AGBEGBE
6BAGE46GJE<GFB9@4A74@HF68EG<BE4E<6:4<&77&394CEB;<5<G<BA4A7;4584F6BECHF
4Fwell as injunctions and declaratory judgments.”).
;E<FGBC;8E $
'<8GEHFM><8J<6M .8(&7)*) *+*7*3(* :).(.&1 3)*5*3)*3(* .3
3+472&1,*3(>:.)&3(*+%%
#
)-
(“Before the massive increase
<A G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FGEH6GHE8 6BHEGF J8E8 G;8 6?84E <AG8ECE8G8EF B9 FG4GHGBEL
@4A74G8F
+;8 6BHEGF E8FB?I87 4@5<:H<GL 9<??87 :4CF <A ?8:<F?4G<BA 4A7 H?G<@4G8?L
6E84G8746B@@BA?4J
+;8%8J84?FBH:;GGB6;4A:8G;88K<FG<A:CBJ8EFGEH6GHE8
B9<AG8ECE8G4G<BA@BI<A:4HG;BE<GL GBE8FB?I84@5<:HBHF?4J9EB@G;8=H7<6<4ELGB
the newly minted administrative structure.”); Jonathan T. Molot, -*.8*&3)&114+
*=9:&1.82&#,$
#
)-
,
*
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
Company’s determination of property values for the purpose of
F8GG<A: E4G8F
+;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG ;8?7 G;4G F<A68 4A <@CEBC8E
I4?H4G<BAB9CEBC8EGL6BH?7E8FH?G<A46BAFG<GHG<BA4?I<B?4G<BA“G;8
*G4G8@HFGCEBI<78494<EBCCBEGHA<GL9BEFH5@<GG<A:G;4G<FFH8GB4
=H7<6<4? GE<5HA4? 9BE 78G8E@<A4G<BA HCBA <GF BJA .3)*5*3)*39
/:),2*39 4F GB 5BG; ?4J 4A7 946GF
” 8FC<G8 G;8 6B@C?8K<GL B9
CEBC8EGLI4?H4G<BAG;8BHEG78G8E@<A87G;4G4:8A6L8KC8EG<F87<7
ABGJ4EE4AG=H7<6<4?7898E8A685864HF86BAFG<GHG<BA4?E<:;GF@4L58
<@C?<64G87<AG;84:8A6L46G<BA
The Court’s apprehension towards agency deference was not
?<@<G87GB=H7<6<4?E8I<8JB946G<BAF5LFG4G84:8A6<8F
A 74<*11;
*3843 when reviewing the actions of the Employees’
B@C8AF4G<BAB@@<GG8849878E4?4:8A6LE8?4G87GB4FLFG8@B9
worker’s compensation for injuries of longshoremen and harbor
JBE>8EF G;8 BHEG BA68 4:4<A ;8?7 G;4G G;8 <@C?<64G<BA B9 4
petitioner’s constitutional rights warranted judicial review and
CEB;<5<G87 :E4AG<A: 4AL 7898E8A68 GB G;8 4:8A6L
.;<?8 G;8
@4=BE<GL BC<A<BA 7<F6HFF87 G;8 A887 9BE =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 GB
47@<A<FGE4G<I8 946G 9<A7<A:F BA 68EG4<A <FFH8F <G E8?8:4G87 G;<F
)4G
)4G8@C;4F<F47787
)(“Here the insiFG8A68<FG;4GG;8'H5?<6*8EI<68B@C4AL#4J4F6BAFGEH874A7
4CC?<875L G;82'8AAFL?I4A<43*HCE8@8BHEG;4F78CE<I87C?4<AG<99<A8EEBEB9G;8
right to be so heard.”); 8**&184BEBH:;B98AIBAI
&;<B-4??8L.4G8EB
'4
6<G<A: ?4A:H4:8 9EB@ FG4G8 CE86878AG 45BHG G;8 6B@C?8K<GL B9
8FG45?<F;<A: F6;87H?8F B9 E4G8F BE GB??F rev’d ,
*
4G +;8 BHEG ;4F
@4<AG4<A87 8?8@8AGF B9 G;<F F>8CG<6<F@ GBJ4E7F 4:8A6<8F J;8A 6<I<? E<:;GF 4E8
<@C?<64G87
***, 'H5
@CF
)8G
*LF
B9 &;<B I
8GGF ,
*
(Marshall, J., dissenting) (“The majority’s derogation of this dual agency
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA ?84I8F BA8 GB JBA78E J;L J;8A <@CBEG4AG 6<I<? E<:;GF ?4JF 4E8 4G
<FFH8 G;8 BHEG 94<?F GB 47;8E8 J<G; 6BAF<FG8A6L GB <GF FB B9G8A 8FCBHF87 CB?<6L B9
7898EE<A:GB8KC8EGagency judgment on ambiguous statutory questions.”).
,
*
)at 60 (“In cases brought to enforce constituG<BA4?E<:;GFG;8=H7<6<4?CBJ8EB9G;8
,A<G87*G4G8FA868FF4E<?L8KG8A7FGBG;8<A78C8A78AG78G8E@<A4G<BAB94??DH8FG<BAF
both of fact and law, necessary to the performance of that supreme function.”).
3
!
7898E8A68GBC8E<C;8E4?@4GG8EF4A7E8G4<A87G;8EB?8B9946G9<A78E
9BE G;8 @BFG “9HA74@8AG4? BE =HE<F7<6G<BA4?” 946GF
,A?<>8 G;8
@B78EA-*;743FG4A74E7J;8E84@5<:H<GLBEF<?8A68<AG;8FG4GHG8
<F<AG8ECE8G874F78?8:4G<BAGBG;84:8A6LG;8BHEG<A74<*11;8?7
G;4G G;8 G4F> B9 6BAF<78E<A: 64F8F 58?BA:87 GB G;8 6BHEGF :31*88 4
FG4GHG88KC?<6<G?LE8DH<E877898E8A6858499BE787GBG;84:8A6L
F
4:8A6L 7898E8A68 <A<G<4??L 78I8?BC87 G;8 BHEG J4F J4EL B9 G;8
implications for the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights.
)%&%0)% %+%.#
B??BJ<A: G;8 8KC?BF<BA B9 9878E4? 4:8A6<8F 7HE<A: G;8 %8J
84?G;8BHEG8KC?BE877<998E8AGFGE4G8:<8F9BE4??B64G<A:7898E8A68
GB4:8A6L786<F<BAF
8GJ88A4A7G;8BHEG4CC?<879BHE
7<FG<A6G9BE@FB9=H7<6<4?7898E8A68G;4GE8@4<AE8?8I4AGGB74L
+;8
8CBAL@BHF 64F8F 9BE G;8F8 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F <A6?H78 &<(:8
&(-.3* 4 ; !3.9*) 9&9*8 0.)247* ; <.+9 4 4<1*8 ;
*2.341*4(0&3)44A7!3.9*)9&9*8;:79.88#7.,-9=5479
475 +;8 HA68EG4<AGL 8KC8E<8A687 5L 6BHEGF :E4CC?<A: J<G;
6B@C8G<A:7898E8A68E8:<@8F6BAG<AH8FGB74L
The Court’s reasoning 9BE :E4AG<A: 7898E8A68 GB 4:8A6L
786<F<BAF<AG;<FC8E<B7J4FCE8@<F87BA4I4E<8GLB9=HFG<9<64G<BAF
&A884E?L=HFG<9<64G<BA9BE=H7<6<4?7898E8A68E8?<87BAG;8G8@CBE4?
BE<:<A4G<BA B9 G;8 4:8A6L 46G<BA
$H6; ?<>8 G;8 BHEG 4CC?<8F G;8
<EFG BA:E8FF 4ABA 5L 6BAF<78E<A: G;8 46G<BAF B9 G;8 84E?L
)4G
) (“Moreover, the statute containF AB 8KCE8FF ?<@<G4G<BA 4GG8@CG<A: GB CE86?H78
G;86BHEG<A CEB6887<A:FGBF8G4F<784ABE78E4FABG <A466BE74A68J<G;?4J9EB@
@4><A:<GFBJA8K4@<A4G<BA4A778G8E@<A4G<BAB9946GFJ;8A8I8EG;4G<F788@87GB
58A868FF4ELGB8A9BE6846BAFG<GHG<BA4?E<:ht properly asserted.”).
,
*
,
*
,
*
,
*
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
Congress to be especially informative of the Framers’ intent, G;8
BHEGJBH?7B9G8A:E4AG7898E8A68GB4:8A6LE8:H?4G<BAFG;4GJ8E8
“6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF6BAFGEH6G<BAF”J<G;G;8FG4GHG8FG;4G8A45?87G;8
4:8A6L 46G<BA
BHEGF 4?FB I4?H87 6BAF<FG8A6L <A G;8 4:8A6L
E8:H?4G<BAF
A 6BAGE4FG GB @B78EA CE86878AG G;4G 6BAF<78EF
4:8A6<8F 4F @BE8 78@B6E4G<64??L 466BHAG45?8 G;4A 6BHEGF G;8F8
cases from the New Deal era emphasized agencies’ expertise and
<AFH?4G<BA 9EB@ G;8 78@B6E4G<6 CEB68FF
5F8AG 9EB@ G;8
=HE<FCEH78A68 B9 G;<F C8E<B7 <F G;8 ABG<BA B9 BA:E8FF<BA4?
delegation of authority to agencies; the Court’s opinions remained
?4E:8?LF<?8AGJ<G;E8:4E7GB78?8:4G<BAG;8BE<8F4F4=HFG<9<64G<BA9BE
=H7<6<4?7898E8A68HAG<?
$<6;48?;4E:4I4B@@8AG The First Congress Canon and the Supreme Court’s Use
4+.8947># #
)-
1745, 1746 (2006) (“The 1)7*)786<F<BA<FBA?LG;8@BFG
recent example of the Supreme Court’s use of a method of constitutional
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA G;4G ?BB>F GB G;8 46G<BAF B9 G;8 <EFG BA:E8FF 4F J8<:;GL BE 8I8A
7<FCBF<G<I88I<78A68B9G;8@84A<A:B9G;8BAFG<GHG<BA
+;8BHEG;4FFCBE47<64??L
GEBGG87 BHG G;<F <EFG BA:E8FF 64ABA B9 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? <AG8ECE8G4G<BA <A @BE8 G;4A
thirty decisions over the last 200 years.”).
,Comm’r v. S. Tex. Lumber Co.333 U.S. 496, 501 (1948) (“This Court has many
G<@8F786?4E87G;4G+E84FHELE8:H?4G<BAF@HFG58FHFG4<A87HA?8FFHAE84FBA45?84A7
C?4<A?L <A6BAF<FG8AG J<G; G;8 E8I8AH8 FG4GHG8F 4A7 G;4G G;8L 6BAFG<GHG8
6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF 6BAFGEH6G<BAF 5L G;BF8 6;4E:87 J<G; 47@<A<FGE4G<BA B9 G;8F8
FG4GHG8FJ;<6;F;BH?7ABG58BI8EEH?878K68CG9BEJ8ighty reasons.”).
)
E47?8L 8BE:8 H554E7 *+*7*3(* 94 ,*3(> 9&9:947> 39*757*9&9.438 .789
);&3(*).3.9.,&9.43 -*;8IEBA <49*5&3)9-**><7@BE8-:++1* ,
#
)-
54 (2013) (“These conflicting views of agencies—4FG86;AB6E4G<68KC8EGF
<AFH?4G87 9EB@ CB?<G<64? CE8FFHE8 <A G;8 @<A7F B9 G;8 )BBF8I8?G 8@B6E4GF 4A7 4F
4AG<G;8G<64?GB<A7<I<7H4?9E887B@<AG;8@<A7FB9G;8)8CH5?<64AF4A7G;8*BHG;8EA
8@B6E4GF—shaped the Court’s view of agencies from the late 1930s throH:; G;8
early 1960s.”).
**04>HFI
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
26 (1944) (“Congress is not confined to
G;4G @8G;B7 B9 8K86HG<A: <GF CB?<6L J;<6; <AIB?I8F G;8 ?84FG CBFF<5?8 78?8:4G<BA B9
discretion to administrative officers.”).
3
!
&<(:8&(-.3*4;!3.9*)9&9*8
A &<(:8&(-.3*4;!3.9*)9&9*8786<787 G;8 F4@8 L84E
4F 74<*11 G;8 BHEG 7898EE87 GB 4A )* <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8
)8I8AH86GB9
,A?<>8<A74<*11;BJ8I8EG;8BHEG9BHA7
G;4G BA:E8FF 7<7 8KC?<6<G?L 78?8:4G8 4HG;BE<GL GB 8A9BE68 G;8
)8I8AH8 6G GB G;8 B@@<FF<BA8E B9 G;8 )*
.;8A FH6; 4
delegation was explicit, the agency’s regulations were “I4?<7HA?8FF
HAE84FBA45?8BE<A6BAF<FG8AGJ<G;G;8FG4GHG8
”
The Court’s brief analysis prov<78F ?<GG?8 ?8:4? =HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE
G;8 786<F<BA GB 7898E GB G;8 4:8A6L
+;8 FG4A74E7 4EG<6H?4G87 <F
F<@<?4E GB G;8 -*;743FG4A74E7 9BE 7898E8A68 J;<6; E8DH<E8F BA?L
E84FBA45?8 4:8A6L 46G<BA <A BE78E 9BE 7898E8A68 GB <A;8E8
,A?<>8
-*;743 ;BJ8I8E 7898E8A68 GB G;8 4:8A6L HA78E &<(:8 <F ABG
6BAG<A:8AGBAFG4GHGBELF<?8A68BE4@5<:H<GL
+;8E8I<8J<A:6BHEGF
ABG87 G;4G <A 7898EE<A: GB G;8 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BA G;8 BHEG 7<7
6BAF<78E J;8G;8E BE ABG BA:E8FF 786<787 GB 8KC?<6<G?L 78?8:4G8
FH6; 4HG;BE<GL GB G;8 4:8A6L <A G;8 FG4GHG8
+;8 BHEG 4?FB
reasoned that deference was appropriate in light of regulations’
“6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF6BAFGEH6G<BA”J;8E8<AG;84:8A6L8FG45?<F;8F4
E8:H?4G<BA <AG8ECE8G<A: 4 FG4GHG8 8<G;8E F<@H?G4A8BHF?L BE F;BEG?L
49G8E G;8 C4FF4:8 B9 G;8 FG4GHG8
?FB I4?H87 J8E8 6BAF<FG8A6L <A
G;84CC?<64G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG84A74:8A6L8KC8EG<F8
,
*
)4G
)
)
) (“[Agency regulations] are valid unless unreasonable or inconsistent with the
statute”).
) 786<7<A: G;4G G;8 4:8A6L 46G87 E84FBA45?L 54F87 BA 8KCE8FF 4HG;BE<GL
6BA98EE875LBA:E8FF
). (“The United States repl<8FG;4G<G<F4A7F<A68<G;4F588AE8DH<E87G;4G4
G4KC4L8EF;4??>88C;<F5BB>F4A7@4>8;<FE8GHEAFBA454F<FJ;<6;J<??E89?86GGEH8
income . . . The position of the government is sound.”).
)
)
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
8FC<G8 G;8 F<@<?4E<GL GB G;8 -*;743 7898E8A68 C4E47<:@
&<(:8 7898E8A68 <A<G<4??L FHEI<I87 -*;743 5HG J4F 8IB>87
8K6?HF<I8?L <A 64F8F <AIB?I<A: G;8 )*
+;8 CE86878AG E8:<@8
78E<I879EB@ &<(:84A7<GFCEB:8AL684F87GB8K<FG<A J;8A
G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG EH?87 G;4G -*;743 7898E8A68 :BI8EA87 64F8F
<AIB?I<A:G;8 )*
0.)247*;<.+94
The Court’s 1944 decision in 0.)247*;<.+94
J;8E8G;8
7898E8A68 499BE787 GB 4A 4:8A6L 46G<BA <F 7<E86G?L CEBCBEG<BA4? GB
the agency decision’s persuasive power,J4F8KC?<6<G?LE8I<G4?<M87
5L G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG <A !3.9*)9&9*8;*&)475 A 0.)247*
G;8 BHEG 9BHA7 G;4G G;8 7@<A<FGE4GBE B9 G;8 8C4EG@8AG B9
Labor’s Wage and Hour Division was entitled to deference in his
<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9G;84<E#45BE*G4A74E7F6G
+;87@<A<FGE4GBE
9<EFG4EG<6H?4G87G;<FCBF<G<BA<A;<F4@<6HF5E<89GBG;8FH<G5EBH:;G
5L9<E89<:;G<A:8@C?BL88FB94*J<9G4A7B@C4ALC46><A:C?4AG
A 0.)247* G;8 BHEG 8KC?<6<G?L FG4G87 4 ?<FG B9 6;4E46G8E<FG<6F
G;4G 49986G87 G;8 C8EFH4F<I8 4HG;BE<GL B9 4:8A6L 786<F<BAF
+;8F8
factors included the thoroughness evident in the agency’s
consideration of the issue, the validity of the agency’s reasoning,
4A7 G;8 6BAF<FG8A6L B9 G;8 46G<BA J<G; 84E?<8E 4A7 ?4G8E
CEBABHA68@8AGF
.;<?8 G;8 BHEG 7<7 ABG 8KC?<6<G?L FG4G8 G;4G
,, Boulez v. Comm’r, 810 F.2d 209, 2 <E
#8758GG8E I
,A<G87
*G4G8F 7 G;<E
*C84EF I
$8E<G *LF
'EBG
7
7
87
<E
$4LBBHA7
9BE$87
7H6
)8F84E6;I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
,
*
)at 140 (“The weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon . .
. all those factors which give it power to persuade.”).
,
*
;B?7<A: G;4G 4 G4E<99 6?4FF<9<64G<BA J4F ABG 8AG<G?87 GB
-*;7437898E8A68BA?L0.)247*7898E8A68
0.)247*,
*
4G
)4G
)4G
3
!
6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF 6BAFGEH6G<BA B9 G;8 E8:H?4G<BA J4F 8FF8AG<4? GB
G;<F 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68 <G 7<7 6BAG<AH8 GB 7<F6HFF G;8 A887 9BE
6BAG<AH<GL <A 4:8A6L E8:H?4G<BAF 4F 4 =HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68
+;8 ?<FG B9 946GBEF <A 0.)247* J4F ABG <AG8A787 GB 58
6B@CE8;8AF<I84A7 E8@4<AF <A6B@C?8G8 GB74L
+4>8A GB:8G;8E
G;8F8 946GBEF 4??BJ 9BE G;8 7898E8A68 499BE787 GB G;8 4:8A6L GB
expand or contract depending on the evidence on the agency’s
E84FBA<A: E4G;8E G;4A 9B6HF BA G;8 E8?4G<BAF;<C 58GJ88A G;8
agency’s action and the statute or regulation.
4<1*8;*2.341*4(0&3)4
L84E 49G8E 0.)247* G;8 BHEG 6BAF<78E87 J;4G 9BE@ B9
7898E8A68 GB :E4AG GB 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF B9 G;8<E BJA
E8:H?4G<BAF <A 4<1*8 ; *2.341* 4(0 &3) 4 *C86<9<64??L 4G
<FFH8<AG;<F64F8J4FG;84CC?<64G<BAB948A8E4?$4K<@H@'E<68
)8:H?4G<BA C4FF87 5L G;8 &99<68 B9 'E<68 7@<A<FGE4GBE <A 4A
4GG8@CG GB 6HE5 J4EG<@8 <A9?4G<BA
*8@<AB?8 )B6> *4A7 B
4
@4AH946GHE8EB96EHF;87FGBA8;474CE<BE6BAGE46GJ<G;*845B4E7
<E#<A8)4<?EB47F8??<A:6EHF;87FGBA868AGFC8EGBA7HE<A:G;8
C8E<B7E8?8I4AG9BEG;8CE<68F8GG<A:
AG;8A8:BG<4G<BAF9BE4A8J
6BAGE46G J<G; *845B4E7 *8@<AB?8 )B6> 4:E887 GB F8?? G;8 6EHF;87
FGBA89BE68AGFC8EGBA<G=HFG<9<87G;<FCE<68<A6E84F85L4??8:<A:
G;4G <G J4F FG<?? 58?BJ G;8 68<?<A: CE<68 B9 C8E GBAB9 6EHF;87
FGBA8 G;4G <G ;47 4CC?<87 <A 7<998E8AG 6BAGE46GF 7HE<A: G;8 E8?8I4AG
C8E<B7
BJ?8F 4F E8CE8F8AG4G<I8 B9 G;8 &99<68 B9 'E<68
)
)(holding the above listed factors to be relevant to the analysis as well as “all
those factors which give it power to persuade”).
"E<FG<A <6>@4A $4GG;8J "EH8:8E 3 *&7(- 4+ 9-* 4)*73 *><7@BE8
9&3)&7)&#,$
#
)-
,
*
)4G
)
4G
)
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
7@<A<FGE4G<BA 6BAG8FG87 G;<F <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 8A8E4?
$4K<@H@ 'E<68 )8:H?4G<BA
+;8 BHEG ;8?7 G;4G G;8
47@<A<FGE4G<I8 <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 <GF BJA E8:H?4G<BA “586B@8F B9
6BAGEB??<A:J8<:;GHA?8FF<G<FC?4<A?L8EEBA8BHFBE<A6BAF<FG8AGJ<G;
G;8E8:H?4G<BA
”
$H6; ?<>8 G;8 6?84E?L 8EEBA8BHF FG4A74E7 B9 E8I<8J 4CC?<87 GB
7<FGE<6G6BHEG786<F<BAFG;<FC?4<A?L8EEBA8BHFFG4A74E7 <F4 FGEBA:
9BE@ B9 7898E8A68 J;<6; :B8F 58LBA7 -*;743 <A <GF ?8I8? B9
7898E8A68 GB 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 46G<BAF
.;<?8 -*;743 7898E8A68
E8DH<E8F 5BG; G;4G 4 FG4GHG8 CE8F8AG FB@8 4@5<:H<GL 4A7 G;4G G;8
agency’s interpretation be reasonable, 4<1*8 7898E8A68 @8E8?L
E8DH<E8FG;4GG;84:8A6L46G<BAABG58C?4<A?L8EEBA8BHFJ;<6;<FGB
F4LFB@8G;<A:58LBA7HAE84FBA45?8
%BE<FG;<F786<F<BA?<@<G875L
G;8 946G G;4G G;8 E8:H?4G<BA <A DH8FG<BA J4F 4 J4EG<@8 E8:H?4G<BA
G;8BHEG 7<7ABG?<@<G<GFEH?<A:GBJ4EG<@8BE8@8E:8A6LCBJ8EF
B9 G;8 9878E4? :BI8EA@8AG
+;8 BHEG E8FG87 <GF 7898E8A68 BA G;8
agency’s inherent authority to interpr8G<GFBJAE8:H?4G<BAF J;<6;
J4FHA49986G875LG;8A4GHE8B9G;8E8:H?4G<BAJ;8G;8EJ4EG<@8BE
BG;8EJ<F8
+;8 BHEG 7<7 ABG 8KC?<6<G?L =HFG<9L <GF 786<F<BA GB 4CC?L G;<F
7898E8AG<4? FG4A74E7 46478@<6F 6BAG8A7 G;4G G;<F 7898E8A68 <F
CE8@<F87 BA G;8 4:8ncy’s expertise in applying their own
E8:H?4G<BAF
4<1*8 6BAG<AH8F GB 8A=BL 94IBE J<G; G;8 BHEG 4A7
)4G
)4G
)
$4AA<A:8:57&note 2, at 614 (citation omitted) (“*2.341*4(07898E8A68
;4F
largely ‘gone unquestioned’ since 1945, perhaps because of the ‘common sense’ idea
that an agency ‘is in a superior position to determine what it intended when it issued
4EH?8;BJ4A7J;8A<G<AG8A787G;8EH?8GB4CC?L4A7G;8<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9G;8EH?8
that makes the most sense given the agency’s purposes in issuing the rule.’”).
3
!
formed the precedential basis of the Court’s decision in the
CBFG-*;74364F8:*7;4''.38
!3.9*)9&9*8;:79.88#7.,-9=5479475
+;8FGEBA:8FG9BE@B97898E8A68GB4:8A6L46G<BAF6B@8FHA78E
!3.9*)9&9*8;:79.88#7.,-9=5479475 AG;<F64F86BA68EA<A:
6BAFC<E46L 6;4E:8F 4:4<AFG G;8 HEG<FF .E<:;G KCBEG 6BECBE4G<BA
9BE4GG8@CG<A:GBF8??4E@FGB49BE8<:A:BI8EA@8AG<AI<B?4G<BAB94
=B<AG E8FB?HG<BA B9 BA:E8FF G;8 BHEG ;8?7 G;4G 46G<BAF B9 G;8
8K86HG<I8 E8?4G<A: GB 9BE8<:A 4994<EF 4E8 :E4AG87 4 “78:E88 B9
7<F6E8G<BA4A79E887B@9EB@FG4GHGBELE8FGE<6G<BAJ;<6;JBH?7ABG
58 47@<FF<5?8 J8E8 7B@8FG<6 4994<EF 4?BA8 <AIB?I87
” +;8
E8DH<E8@8AG G;4G 4A 8K8E6<F8 B9 4AL :BI8EA@8AG CBJ8E FG8@ 9EB@
8<G;8E4A46GB9BA:E8FF BE9EB@4FC86<9<64??L8AH@8E4G87CBJ8E
<A G;8 BAFG<GHG<BA 7B8F ABG 4CC?L GB <FFH8F E8?4G87 GB G;8
executive’s general foreign relations powers.
+;<F9BE@B97898E8A687<998EFF?<:;G?L9EB@G;8BG;8E7898E8A68
C4E47<:@F 7<F6HFF87 <A G;<F C4C8E 5864HF8 G;8 9BHA74G<BA B9 G;8
agency’s authority arises from the executive’s inherent authority as
G;8 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? E8CE8F8AG4G<I8 B9 G;8 ,A<G87 *G4G8F GB 9BE8<:A
A4G<BAF
+;<F 7<998E8A68 64A 58 BI8EFG4G87 ;BJ8I8E F<A68 @BFG
9BE@FB9=H7<6<4?7898E8A68GB4:8A6<8FE8?LBAG;8ABG<BAG;4G<AG;8
46G B9 8A9BE6<A: ?4JF CEBI<787 5L 6BA:E8FF 4A 4:8A6L <A;8E8AG?L
,
*
8**&184Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1210
?<GB !
6BA6HEE<A: 8KCE8FF<A: 6BA68EA J<G; G;8 BHEG’s continued
4CC?<64G<BAB94<1*8
,
*
)4G
)
4G16 (1936) (“The broad statement that the federal government can exercise
AB CBJ8EF 8K68CG G;BF8 FC86<9<64??L 8AH@8E4G87 <A G;8 BAFG<GHG<BA 4A7 FH6;
<@C?<87 CBJ8EF 4F 4E8 A868FF4EL 4A7 CEBC8E GB 64EEL <AGB 89986G G;8 8AH@8E4G87
powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”)
)4GF>E<7:848E8:57&ABG84G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
8A:4:8F <A FB@8 78:E88 B9 FG4GHGBEL <AG8ECE8G4G<BA
BE G;<F
E84FBA G;8 4HG;BE<GL B9 G;8 4:8A6L GB <AG8ECE8G 4 FG4GHG8 4?@BFG
4?J4LF78E<I8F4?58<G<A7<E86G?L9EB@EG<6?8 +;<F 8KGE8@8 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68 J4F CE8@<F87 BA G;8 <A;8E8AG
4A7 HA8AH@8E4G87 CBJ8E B9 G;8 8K86HG<I8 GB 6BA7H6G 9BE8<:A
4994<EF
+;8 8K86HG<I8 J4F @BE8 899<6<8AG 4G 8FG45?<F;<A: 9BE8<:A
E8?4G<BAF :B4?F 4A7 CB?<6<8F 4F J8?? 4F G;8 @BFG 89986G<I8 <A
@4<AG4<A<A: <AG8EA4G<BA4? E8?4G<BAF
:79.88#7.,-9 FHEI<I87
-*;7434A76BAG<AH8FGB584CC?<87GBG;<F74L
"!
B??BJ<A: G;8 8KC?BF<BA B9 7898E8A68 CE86878AGF <A G;8 F
4A7F=H7<6<4?7898E8A68=HE<FCEH78A6878I8?BC87F?BJ?LHAG<?
G;8BHEG<FFH874F8E<8FB9;H:8?L<A9?H8AG<4?786<F<BAF<AG;8F
4A7 F
.;<?8 G;8 F 4A7 F 7<7 ABG 8KC8E<8A68 4A
** Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974) (“The power of an 47@<A<FGE4G<I8
4:8A6LGB47@<A<FG8E46BA:E8FF<BA4??L6E84G87
CEB:E4@A868FF4E<?LE8DH<E8FG;8
9BE@H?4G<BA B9 CB?<6L 4A7 G;8 @4><A: B9 EH?8F GB 9<?? 4AL :4C ?89G <@C?<6<G?L BE
explicitly, by Congress.”);;8IEBA ,
*
A6
I
%4G
)8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
45 (1984) (“We have long recognized that considerable weight should
be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is
entrusted to administer.”).
:79.88#7.,-9,
*
4G6<G4G<BAFB@<GGed) (“The power to acquire territory
5L 7<F6BI8EL 4A7 B66HC4G<BA G;8 CBJ8E GB 8KC8? HA78F<E45?8 4?<8AF G;8 CBJ8E GB
@4>8FH6;<AG8EA4G<BA4?4:E88@8AGF4F7BABG6BAFG<GHG8GE84G<8F<AG;86BAFG<GHG<BA4?
F8AF8ABA8B9J;<6;<F8KCE8FF?L499<E@875LG;8BAFG<GHG<BAA8I8EG;8?8FF8K<FG4F
inherently inseparable from the conception of nationality.”).
)4G
,1<IBGB9F>L*=7*11<IBGB9F>LI
"8EEL*
G
;B?7<A:G;4GG;8
'E8F<78AG ;47 8K6?HF<I8 CBJ8E GB E86B:A<M8 9BE8<:A A4G<BAF 4A7 :BI8EA@8AGF
E<MBA4 I
,A<G87 *G4G8F *
G
;B?7<A: G;4G G;8 9878E4?
:BI8EA@8AG ;4F 5EB47 HA7BH5G87 CBJ8E BI8E G;8 FH5=86G B9 <@@<:E4G<BA 4A7 G;8
FG4GHF B9 4?<8AF ,A<G87 *G4G8F I
-8E7H:B,EDH<78M ,
*
;B?7<A: G;4G G;8 BHEG; @8A7@8AG 7B8F ABG 4CC?L GB F84E6;8F 4A7 F8<MHE8F
6BA7H6G875L,
*
4:8AGFBACEBC8EGL?B64G8745EB47
3
!
8KC?BF<BA <A G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8 BA G;8 ?8I8?B9 G;8 F 4A7
F G;8 BHEG 7<7 58:<A GB E86BAF<78E G;8 <AG8??86GH4? 54F<F 9BE
7898E8A68 GB 4:8A6<8F
.;<?8 7898E8A68 <A G;8 9<EFG ;4?9 B9 G;8
GJ8AG<8G; 68AGHEL J4F CE<@4E<?L CE8@<F87 BA FG45<?<GL 4A7 G;8
CE46G<64?899<6<8A6LB947@<A<FGE4G<I846GBEF6BHEGF<AG;8F4A7
F58:4AGB=HFG<9L6BAG<AH<A: 7898E8A68GB4:8A6L786<F<BAFBA
7<998E8AG :EBHA7F ABG45?L 6BA:E8FF<BA4? 78?8:4G<BA 4A7
7emocratic accountability. This shift in the Court’s reasoning has
588A 4GGE<5HG87 GB 4 F86BA7 6H?GHE8 F;<9G G;4G 6H?@<A4G87 <A G;8
Court’s decisions of the 1980s.
+;86;4A:8<AG;8=H7<6<4?=HFG<9<64G<BA9BE7898E8A68<FE89?86G87
<A *&)
.;<?8 G;8 946GBEF ?<FG87 <A 0.)247* 4A7 *&) 4E8 ABG
6B@CE8;8AF<I8G;8L7B4??BJHFGBF88J;4GG;8!HFG<68F788@87GB
58 <@CBEG4AG 6BAF<78E4G<BAF
.;<?8 !HFG<68 !46>FBA 54F87 0.)247*
7898E8A68 BA G;8 89986G<I8A8FF B9 4:8A6L E84FBA<A: 4A7 <GF
6BAF<FG8A6L J<G; BG;8E CEBABHA68@8AGF !HFG<68 *BHG8E JE<G<A: <A
8KC4A787 G;<F ?<FG GB <A6?H78 6BAF<78E4G<BA B9 “G;8 @8E<G B9
2G;83 JE<G8EFG;BEBH:;A8FF?B:<64A78KC8EGA8FF <GF9<G J<G;CE<BE
<AG8ECE8G4G<BAF 4A7 4AL BG;8E FBHE68F B9 J8<:;G
” .;<?8 G;8
0.)247*EH?<A:6BAG4<A875E<89@8AG<BAFB9G;87@<A<FGE4GBEB9G;8
Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division experience in
4CC?L<A:G;8FG4GHG8G;<F8KC8EG<F8J4FABG4A8AH@8E4G87946GBE<A
0.)247*7898E8A68
The Agency’s expertise had become a relevant
946GBE<AG;84A4?LF<FB94:8A6L7898E8A685LG;8F
H554E7 8:57& note 43, at 452 (“[C]oncerns about judicial activism animated the
Court’s jurisprudence, culminating iA J<G; -*;743 ! 3( ; &9:7&1
*84:7(*8 *+*38* 4:3(.1 3( <A J;<6; G;8 BHEG ;8?7 G;4G 68EG4<A 4:8A6L
interpretations warranted controlling deference.”).
,A<G87*G4G8FI
$847BEC
,
*
)*><7@BE8I
*J<9GB
,
*
0.)247*,
*
4G
***,'H5
@CF
)8G
*LF
B9&;<BI
8GGF,
*
$4EF;4??!
dissenting) (“The majority’s derogation of this dual agency interpretation leaves one
GB JBA78E J;L J;8A <@CBEG4AG 6<I<? E<:;GF ?4JF 4E8 4G <FFH8 G;8 BHEG 94<?F GB
47;8E8J<G;6BAF<FG8A6LGB<GFFBB9G8A8FCBHF87CB?<6LB97898EE<A:GB8KC8EG4:8A6L
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
BA:E8FF<BA4?78?8:4G<BA4F4=HFG<9<64G<BA9BE=H7<6<4?7898E8A68
J4F ?4E:8?L 45F8AG 9EB@ G;8 84E?<8E CE86878AG
.;<?8 G;8 BHEG 4G
G;8 58:<AA<A: B9 G;8 GJ8AG<8G; 68AGHEL E8DH<E87 G;4G FG4GHG8F
8KCE8FF?L?<@<G=H7<6<4?E8I<8J<ABE78EGB78984GG;8CE8FH@CG<BAB9
<A78C8A78AG =H7<6<4? 4A4?LF<F 5L G;8 ABG<BA B9 <@C?<6<G
6BA:E8FF<BA4? 78?8:4G<BAF B9 4HG;BE<GL G;EBH:; ?8:<F?4G<I8
4@5<:H<GL J4F 4A 8@587787 6BA68CG <A *HCE8@8 BHEG
=HE<FCEH78A68
+;<FJ4F4?FBF88A<AG;86BAG8KGB9 :79.88#7.,-9
7898E8A68
A &.,;,**4 786<F<BA <AIB><A: :79.88#7.,-9G;8
BHEG J4F G4F>87 J<G; 78G8E@<A<A: J;8G;8E G;8 '4FFCBEG 6G
6BA98EE87 HCBA G;8 *86E8G4EL B9 *G4G8 G;8 CBJ8E GB E8IB>8
C4FFCBEGF
+;8 BHEG 9BHA7 G;4G G;8 FG4GHG8 J4F F<?8AG BA G;<F
@4GG8E5HGBA:E8FF;47499BE787G;8*86E8G4EL5EB47EH?8@4><A:
4HG;BE<GL J;<6; <@C?<6<G?L <A6?H787 G;8 4HG;BE<GL GB E8IB>8
C4FFCBEGF
<G<A: %*2*1 ; :80 G;8 BHEG 9BHA7 G;4G
“6BA:E8FF<BA4?46DH<8F68A68@4LFB@8G<@8F589BHA79EB@ABG;<A:
@BE8 G;4A F<?8A68 <A G;8 9468 B9 4A 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 CB?<6L
”.<G;
G;<F A8J 8@C;4F<F BA 78?8:4G<BA 4:8A6<8F J8E8 8KC86G87 GB 58
judgment on ambiguous statutory questions.”); K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, 486 U.S. 281,
*64?<4J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Which suggests one
of the most important reasons we defer to an agency’s construction B94FG4GHG8 <GF
8KC8EGknowledge of the interpretation’s practical consequences.”);;8IEBA,
*
A6
I
%4G
)8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
(“Perhaps that body
6BAF6<BHF?L78F<E87G;87@<A<FGE4GBEGBFGE<>8G;854?4A684GG;<F?8I8?G;<A><A:G;4G
G;BF8 J<G; :E84G 8KC8EG<F8 4A7 6;4E:87 J<G; E8FCBAF<5<?<GL 9BE 47@<A<FG8E<A: G;8
CEBI<F<BAJBH?758<A458GG8ECBF<G<BAGB7BFB
”).
EBJ8??I
8AFBA,
*
-*;743,
*
4G44 (“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to
9<?? G;8E8 <F 4A 8KCE8FF 78?8:4G<BA B9 4HG;BE<GL GB G;8 4:8A6L GB 8?H6<74G8 4 FC86<9<6
CEBI<F<BA B9 G;8 FG4GHG8 5L E8:H?4G<BA
*H6; ?8:<F?4G<I8 E8:H?4G<BAF 4E8 :<I8A
6BAGEB??<A:J8<:;GHA?8FFG;8L4E84E5<GE4EL64CE<6<BHFBE@4A<98FG?L6BAGE4ELGBG;8
statute.”).
,
*
)4G
)4G
,
*
&.,,
*
4G
3
!
@BE8 E8FCBAF<I8 GB G;8 E84?<G<8F G;4G G;8L J8E8 6;4E:87 J<G;
E8:H?4G<A:
+;8A8879BE4:8A6L9?8K<5<?<GLFHEC4FF87G;8<@CBEG4A68
B96BAF<FG8A6L<AE8:H?4GBELCB?<6L
+;8F;<9G<AE84FBA<A:J<G;E8?4G<BAGB7898E8A68GB4:8A6<8F<F
4?FB F88A <A G;8 A8J 7898E8A68 C4E47<:@F G;4G 78I8?BC87 <A G;<F
C8E<B7
A477<G<BAGB-*;743G;8BHEGF8GBHG4@4=BECE86878AG
F8GG<A:786<F<BA<AG;84E84B9?45BE?4J<AG;864F8 *9-87&*1
485.9&1 ; &9.43&1 &'47 *1&9.438 4&7)
G 4?FB E8<9<87 CE86878AG
E8?4G87GB=H7<6<4?7898E8A68<AG4K?<G<:4G<BA<AG;864F8&9.43&1
:++1*7*&1*78884(.&9.433(;!3.9*)9&9*8
*9-87&*1485.9&1;&9.43&1&'47*1&9.4384&7)
A G;8 F;<9G<A: E4G<BA4?<M4G<BA 9BE =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 J4F
78@BAFGE4G87 <A *9- 87&*1 485.9&1 ; &9.43&1 &'47 *1&9.438
4&7)
+;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG 6BAF<78E87 J;8G;8E G;8 %#) 46G87
4CCEBCE<4G8?L <A <AG8ECE8G<A: 4 4@8A7@8AG GB G;8 %4G<BA4?
#45BEF )8?4G<BAF 6G GB 4CC?L GB ;BFC<G4? 8@C?BL88F
*C86<9<64??L
G;8 BHEG J4F 6;4E:87 J<G; 78G8E@<A<A: J;8G;8E G;8 4@8A7@8AG
FHCCBEG87 G;e NLRB’s action prohibiting hospitals from limiting
employees’ ability to solicit union support and distribute union
?<G8E4GHE8 <A CH5?<6 ;BFC<G4? FC468F J<G;BHG 4 F;BJ<A: G;4G FH6;
46G<BAF JBH?7 A8:4G<I8?L 49986G G;8 78?<I8EL B9 DH4?<GL ;84?G; 64E8
F8EI<68F
+;8BHEG;8?7G;4G“2G3;8=H7<6<4?EB?8<FA4EEBJG;8EH?8
J;<6;G;8B4E747BCGF<F=H7<6<4??LE8I<8J45?89BE6BAF<FG8A6LJ<G;
G;86G4A79BEE4G<BA4?<GL
”
**Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981
(2005) (“Agency inconsistency is not a basis for declining to analyze the agency’s
<AG8ECE8G4G<BAHA78EG;8-*;743framework.”).
,
*
,
*
,
*
4G
)4G
)4G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
$H6; ?<>8 -*;743 *9- 87&*1 does not require the agency’s
<AG8ECE8G4G<BAGB58G;8BA?L<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG8BEG;8BA8
G;4G 4 =H7:8 JBH?7 47BCG <9 6BAF<78E<A: G;8 <FFH8 4F BA8 B9 9<EFG
<@CE8FF<BA
A 6BAGE4FG G;8 -*;743 GJBFG8C E8DH<E8F G;4G G;8
Court defer to the agency’s interpretation if, after finding the statute
Go be ambiguous, the agency’s interpretation is a “C8E@<FF<5?8
6BAFGEH6G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG8
”
*9-87&*17898E8A68J4FCE8@<F87BA5BG;G;88KC8EG<F8B9G;8
4:8A6L4A7G;878?8:4G<BAB94HG;BE<GLGBG;8%#)5LBA:E8FF
.;<?8 *9- 87&*1 J4F ABG G;8 9<EFG 64F8 <A G;<F ?<A8 B9 CE86878AG
E8?4G87GB7898E8A68GB%#)9<A7<A:FG;8*9-87&*14EG<6H?4G<BAB9
=H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 <F I<8J87 4F G;8 8CBAL@BHF 64F8 <A G;<F
7898E8A68E8:<@8
In light of the NLRB’s history of enforcing the
%4G<BA4? #45BE )8?4G<BAF 6G G;8 BHEG ABG87 G;8 FH5FG4AG<4?
FG4GHGBEL8KC8EG<F878I8?BC875LG;84:8A6L4F4946GBE<A:E4AG<A:
<G 7898E8A68
+;8 =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 J4F 4?FB CE8@<F87 BA G;8
F4@8ABG<BAB96BA:E8FF<BA4?78?8:4G<BAB94HG;BE<GLG;4G<F68AGE4?
GB -*;743
*<K L84EF CE<BE GB -*;743 G;8 BHEG J4F 4?E847L
<AG8ECE8G<A: FG4GHGBEL F<?8A68 BE 4@5<:H<GL 4F 6BA:E8FF<BA4?
78?8:4G<BAB94HG;BE<GL
.;<?8G;<F@4L?847BA8GB6BA6?H78G;4G
*9- 87&*1 6BAFG<GHG8F 4 CEBGB-*;743 J;<6; JBH?7 ?<>8?L 58
) at 504 (“2 3G <F G;8 B4E7 HCBA J;B@ G;8 7HGL 94??F <A G;8 9<EFG <AFG4A68 GB
78G8E@<A8 G;8 E8?4G<I8 FGE8A:G; B9 G;8 6BA9?<6G<A: <AG8E8FGF 4A7 GB 54?4A68 G;8<E
weight.”
;8IEBA ,
*
A6
I
%4G
)8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
*
*9-87,
*
4G
F>E<7:848E8:57&ABG84G
*9-87,
*
4G
)4G
F>E<7:8 48E 8:57& at note 9, at 1107 (“In fortyA<A8 CBFG-*;743 64F8F G;8
BHEG <AIB>87 *9-87&*1 7898E8A68 4A7 E89E4<A87 9EB@ @8AG<BA<A: -*;743 4AL B9
G;8CBFG-*;74364F8FBEG;894@BHFGJBstep formula.”); 8***,??8AGBJA$46>
*4?8F*8EI
A6
I
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
*
H6<8??B EBA
.BE>F A6
I
%4G’l Labor Relations Bd. ,
*
Nat’l Labor
)8?4G<BAF7
I
HEG<A$4G;8FBA*6<8AG<9<6 A6
,
*
3
!
6BAFH@87<AG;86BA9?4:E4G<BAB9-*;743<G6BAG<AH8FGB586<G874F
47<FG<A6G7898E8A68CE86878AG5L6BHEGF<A%#)64F8F
39.*+*7*3(*
8FC<G8 G;8 I4E<BHF 9BE@F B9 7898E8A68 7<F6HFF87 G;HF 94E
6BHEGF 6BAG<AH8 GB 8KCE8FF J4E<A8FF B9 4:8A6L 46G<BA <A 68EG4<A
4FC86GF B9 G;8 ?4J A4@8?L <A 6E<@<A4? 64F8F 4A7 <A FB@8 64F8F
J;<6; E4<F8 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? 6BA68EAF
*H6; F<GH4G<BAF ;4I8 588A
7H5587“4AG<7898E8A68”5LF6;B?4EF
+;8EH?8B9?8A<GLJ;8E8<A4
E8I<8J<A: 6BHEG <AG8ECE8GF 4A 4@5<:HBHF 6E<@<A4? FG4GHG8 FB 4F GB
4IB<7<A6E84F<A:G;8C8A4?GLC?4687BA4A<A7<I<7H4?<FC8E;4CFG;8
@BFG 4CG 8K4@C?8 B9 G;<F
.;<?8 ABG ?<A>87 GB 4AL BA8 64F8
4AG<7898E8A68CE874G8F-*;7434A7;4F8A7HE87GBG;<F74L
$H6; ?<>8 7898E8A68 HA78E -*;743 4A7 &9.43&1 :++1*7 G;8
EH?8 B9 ?8A<GL <F <AIB>87 <A ?<:;G B9 FG4GHGBEL 4@5<:H<GL
+;8
7<998E8A68 <A 4CC?<64G<BA B9 G;8F8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F ?<8F <A G;8
4E84B9G;8?4J4G<FFH8<AG;864F8
+;8E84FBAG;4GG;8EH?8B9?8A<GL
4CC?<8F 8K6?HF<I8?L GB 4@5<:HBHF (7.2.3&1 FG4GHG8F <F G;4G <G <F
<AG8A787GBCEBG86G<A7<I<7H4?E<:;GF4A74??BJ9BE494<EJ4EA<A:GB
F>E<7:8 48E 8:57& ABG8 4G ?<A4 4F !38-&(01.3,&'*&8*;.*<
;8IEBA *+*7*3(* &3) 9&9:947> 39*757*9&9.43 .3 22.,7&9.43 *9*39.43 &8*8 %
0
,
#
)-
BAABE %
)4FB .<??<4@ %
F>E<7:8 !E
;8IEBA&8&&34349&7*(*)*39325.7.(&19:)>4+#-&949.;&9*8:89.(*8.3
,*3(>*+*7*3(*&8*8&#,$
#
)-
;E<FG<A8"8K8?;45BG
*11.3,;8IEBA$ %
#
)-
<9H?6BI
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
,04G8FI
,A<G87*G4G8F*
G
4CC?L<A:G;8EH?8B9?8A<GL
<A ?<:;G B9 ambiguity about the meaning of the term “tangible object”); .;4?8A I
,A<G87 *G4G8F ,
*
4CC?L<A: EH?8 B9 ?8A<GL GB 4A 4@5<:HBHF
FG4GHG8 G;4G 7<7 ABG 6?84E?L 477E8FF 6BAG<AHBHF F8AG8A6<A: 9BE 6BAI<6G<BAF 9BE
F8C4E4G8FG4GHGBELB998AF8F4E<F<A:HA78EG;8F4@86E<@<A4?GE4AF46G<BA
,.+:1(4, 447 U.S. at 387 (citations omitted) (“[T]he touchstone of the rule of
lenity is statutory ambiguity.”).
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
G;8 CH5?<6 G;4G 68EG4<A 6BA7H6G <F FH5=86G GB CHA<F;@8AG 5L
78CE<I4G<BAB9?<58EGLBECEBC8EGL
AG<7898E8A68 @4L 4?FB B66HE J;8E8 G;8 E8I<8J<A: 6BHEG
4CC?<8FG;864ABAB96BAFG<GHG<BA4?4IB<74A68<AFH6;4J4LG;4G<G
cuts against the agency’s interpretation. A BE78E GB 4CC?L G;8
64ABA B9 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? 4IB<74A68 G;8 E8I<8J<A: 6BHEG @HFG 9<EFG
6BA7H6G4G8KGH4?4A4?LF<FB9G;8FG4GHG84A74CC?LG;864ABABA?L<9
@H?G<C?8 FG4GHGBEL <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF E8@4<A
&A8 FH6; 8K4@C?8
B66HEE87 <A 1&70 ; &79.3*? J;8E8<A G;8 BHEG 6BAF<78E87
whether constitutional limits to the government’s power to detain
HA78EG;8 @@<:E4G<BA4A7%4G<BA4?<GL6G4CC?<87GB<A47@<FF<5?8
4?<8AF
864HF8 G;8 @@<:E4G<BA 4A7 %4G<BA4?<GL 6G 7B8F ABG
8KC?<6<G?L477E8FFG;88C4EG@8AGB9omeland Security’s authority
GB <A789<A<G8?L 78G4<A <A47@<FF<5?8 4?<8AF 4A7 FH6; <A789<A<G8
78G8AG<BA JBH?7 CBG8AG<4??L <@C?<64G8 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87
E<:;GFG;84CC?<64G<BAB964ABAB96BAFG<GHG<BA4?4IB<74A68E8DH<E87
4A<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG8G;4G?<@<G87G;<F78G8AG<BA4HG;BE<GL
GB G;4G J;<6; <F E84FBA45?L A868FF4EL
A G;<F @4AA8E G;8
Department of Homeland Security’s interpretation of the statute
J4F78984G875LG;864ABAB96BAFG<GHG<BA4?4IB<74A68
43*+*7*3(*
A 477<G<BA GB G;8 64F8F J;8E8 64ABAF B9 6BAFGEH6G<BA CEB;<5<G
=H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 G;8 BHEG ;4F <@C?8@8AG87 4ABG;8E 9BE@ B9
4AG<7898E8A68G;EBH:;<GF“8KGE4BE7<A4EL64F8”8K68CG<BAGB=H7<6<4?
7898E8A68
,A78E G;<F 8K68CG<BA G;8 BHEG 8A:4:8F <A )* 34;4
E8I<8J B9 4 64F8 <9 <G J<?? ;4I8 94E E846;<A: 6BAF8DH8A68F 9BE 4A
H77?8FGBAI
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
F>E<7:848E8:57&ABG84G
,
*
)4G
)4G
3
!
<A7HFGEL BE F<:A<9<64AG CBEG<BA B9 G;8 86BAB@L
+;8 BHEG
;BJ8I8E ;4F CEBI<787 ?<GG?8 :H<74A68 BA J;4G 64F8F DH4?<9L 4F
“8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8F
” +;8 9<EFG ABG45?8 HF8 B9 G;<F 8K68CG<BA
B66HEE87 <A <A *1*(422:3.(&9.438 475 ; 4
J;8E8<A G;8 BHEG 6BAF<78E87 G;8 CEBC8E 6BAFGEH6G<BA B9 G;8 G8E@
“@B7<9L” <A N 5 B9 G;8 B@@HA<64G<BAF 6G B9 +;8
Court rejected the Federal Communications Commission’s (“”
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 G8E@ “@B7<9L” 5864HF8 <G ;8?7 G;4G BA:E8FF
?<>8?L JBH?7 ABG 78?8:4G8 GB G;8 G;8 7<F6E8G<BA GB 4?G8E 94E
E846;<A: E4G8E8:H?4G<BAF G;4G 49986G87 4A 8AG<E8 <A7HFGEL G;EBH:;
G;8HF8B9G;4GG8E@
+;8BHEG=HFG<9<87<GF78A<4?B97898E8A68GB
G;8 5L FG4G<A: G;4G G;8 4:8A6L 94<?87 FG8C GJB B9 G;8 -*;743
4A4?LF<F
+;8BHEGJEBG8“2F3<A684A4:8A6LF<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB94
FG4GHG8<FABG8AG<G?87GB7898E8A68J;8A<G:B8F58LBA7G;8@84A<A:
G;4G G;8 FG4GHG8 64A 584E G;8 B@@<FF<BAF C8E@<FF<I8 78G4E<99<A:
CB?<6L 64A 58 =HFG<9<87 BA?L <9 <G @4>8F 4 ?8FF G;4A E47<64? BE
9HA74@8AG4? 6;4A:8 <A G;8 6GF G4E<999<?<A: E8DH<E8@8AG
” F<@<?4E <A6BECBE4G<BA B9 G;<F 8K68CG<BA B66HEE87 <A !9.1.9> .7
BB74A7EH:7@<A
I
EBJA.<??<4@FBA+B5466BBEC
,
*
(2000) (“In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before
6BA6?H7<A:G;4GBA:E8FF;4F<AG8Aded such an implicit delegation.”).
;45BG 8:57& note 107, at 484 (“As a result, the Court has failed to develop a
deference doctrine that provides adequate guidance to lower courts. The Court’s
E868AG 786<F<BAF <A 71.3,943;*)*7&1422:3.(&9.438422.88.43 !9.1.9>.7
*,:1&947>74:5;4A7.3,;:7<*11 7BABGE8FB?I8 -*;743’s problems and
seem likely to make them worse.”).
,
*
)4G6<G4G<BAB@<GG87
) at 231 (“It is highly unlikely that Congress wou?7 ?84I8 G;8 78G8E@<A4G<BA B9
J;8G;8E4A<A7HFGELJ<??588AG<E8?LBE8I8AFH5FG4AG<4??LE4G8E8:H?4G87GB4:8A6L
7<F6E8G<BA—4A78I8A@BE8HA?<>8?LG;4G<GJBH?746;<8I8G;4GG;EBH:;FH6;4FH5G?8
device as permission to ‘modify’ rate9<?<A:E8DH<E8@8AGF.”).
;45BG 8:57& note 107, at 501 (“Chief Justice Roberts joined this opinion, thus
4CC84E<A:GB4:E88G;4G74<3#.11.&2843’s extraordinary case standard fell within
G;8 -*;743 9E4@8JBE>
A .3, ; :7<*11 ;BJ8I8E ;<89 !HFG<68 )B58EGF 7<7 4A
45BHG94684A74AABHA6874A8KGE4BE7<A4EL64F88K68CG<BAGB-*;743.”).
*1*(4228,
*
4G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
*,:1&947> 74:5 ; 3;.7432*39&1 749*(9.43 ,*3(> 4A7 44) &3)
7:, )2.3.897&9.43 ; 74<3 #.11.&2843 4'&((4 475 +;8
E84FBA<A: J4F G;4G 4:8A6L 46G<BAF <A 4E84F 49986G<A: 8KGE4BE7<A4EL
<FFH8FJ<G;<A4A<A7HFGELBE4E84B9?4JJBH?78K6887G;85BHA7F
B9 E84FBA45?8 <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF B9 4@5<:HBHF FG4GHG8F 4A7 G;8E89BE8
J4F ABG 4 E84FBA45?8 <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 FG4GHG8 HA78E -*;743
FG8CGJB
+;<F “8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8” 8K68CG<BA J4F ABG45?8 <A G;8 :7<*11 786<F<BA
+;8 BHEG 8A:4:87 <A )* 34;4 E8I<8J B9 G;8
99BE745?8 4E8 6G <AG8ECE8G4G<BA 49G8E 78G8E@<A<A: G;4G G;8
8KGE4BE7<A4EL64F88K68CG<BA4CC?<87GBG;8@4GG8EB9<AG8ECE8G<A:4
>8L CEBI<F<BA
A .3,;:7<*11G;8 BHEG F<:A4?87 G;4G <G J4F
J<??<A: GB 47BCG 4 @BE8 EB5HFG EB?8 J<G; E8:4E7F GB <AG8ECE8G<A:
FG4GHGBEL 4@5<:H<GL
,CBA E8I<8J<A: G;8 4@5<:HBHF FG4GHGBEL
?4A:H4:8<AG;899BE745?84E86GG;8BHEG46>ABJ?87:87G;4G
-*;7437898E8A68JBH?7ABE@4??L4CC?LGBFH6;F<GH4G<BAFJ;8E84
9878E4?4:8A6LJ4F<AG8ECE8G<A:4FG4GHG8
.;<?8:7<*11J4FABGG;89<EFGG<@8G;8BHEG;474CC?<87G;<F
9BE@B9“8KGE4BE7<A4EL<FFH8”8K68CG<BAGB=H7<6<4?7898E8A68<GJ4F
G;8 9<EFG G<@8 G;4G G;8 BHEG ;47 8KGE46G87 G;8 8K68CG<BA 9EB@ G;8
-*;743 4A4?LF<F
A :7<*11 G;8 BHEG A8I8E 4CCEBK<@4G87 4
Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014) (“EPA’s interpretation is
4?FB HAE84FBA45?8 5864HF8 <G JBH?7 5E<A: 45BHG 4A 8ABE@BHF 4A7 GE4AF9BE@4G<I8
expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional
authorization.”); Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529
,
*
(2000) (“[W]e are confident that Congress could not have intended to
78?8:4G8 4 786<F<BA B9 FH6; 86BAB@<6 4A7 CB?<G<64? F<:A<9<64A68 GB 4A 4:8A6L <A FB
cryptic a fashion.”); 8**;45BG8:57&ABG84G
!9.1.7*,:175*
G
4G
*
G
558)
?H6>8G
4?
!3479-4)4=&<2&0.3,!3479-4)4=:1*2&0.3,&#,$
#
)-
6<G4G<BAB@<GG87
:7<*11 *
G
4G 89 (internal citations omitted) (“When analyzing an
agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the twoFG8C 9E4@8JBE>
4AABHA687 <A -*;743 A 8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8F ;BJ8I8E G;8E8 @4L 58 E84FBA GB
hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.”).
3
!
-*;743 4A4?LF<F
AFG847 G;8 BHEG 58:4A <GF 6BAF<78E4G<BA B9 G;8
?4A:H4:8B9G;899BE745?84E86G5L78G8E@<A<A:G;4G:<I8AG;8
94E E846;<A: 6BAF8DH8A68F B9 G;8 FG4GHGBEL <AG8ECE8G4G<BA G;8 )*
J4FABG8AG<G?87GB4AL9BE@B97898E8A68
&9.43&1:++1*7*&1*78884(.&9.433(;!3.9*)9&9*8
&A8L84E49G8E*9-87&*1G;8BHEG4:4<A4EG<6H?4G874FG4A74E7
B9 7898E8A68 FGE<><A:?L 94@<?<4E GB -*;743 7898E8A68 <A &9.43&1
:++1*7 *&1*78 884(.&9.43 ; !3.9*) 9&9*8
BJ8I8E @H6; ?<>8
*9- 87&*1 G;8 =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 4EG<6H?4G87 <A &9.43&1 :++1*7 <F
BA84CC?<874?@BFG8K6?HF<I8?L<A64F8FE8?4G<A:GB4C4EG<6H?4E4E84
B9 G;8 ?4J <A G;<F 64F8 G4K ?4J
+;8 786<F<BA <AIB?I87 G;8
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 JBE7 “5HF<A8FF ?84:H8” 9BE G4K 8K8@CG<BA
CHECBF8F
+;8 6BHEG 786<787 G;4G =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 F;BH?7 58
499BE787GBG;84:8A6L<9G;846G<BA<@C?8@8AGFG;8FG4GHG8<AFB@8
E84FBA45?8 @4AA8E
*8I8E4? 946GBEF 9BE 78G8E@<A<A:
E84FBA45?8A8FF B9 G;8 E8:H?4G<BA J8E8 FG4G87 <A6?H7<A:
6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF 6BAFGEH6G<BA @4AA8E B9 <@C?8@8AG4G<BA ?8A:G;
B9 G<@8 G;8 E8:H?4G<BA ;4F 588A <A 89986G E8?<4A68 C?4687 BA G;8
E8:H?4G<BA 6BAF<FG8A6L <A 4CC?<64G<BA 4A7 G;8 78:E88 B9 F6EHG<AL
BA:E8FF ;4F 78IBG87 GB G;8 E8:H?4G<BA 7HE<A: FH5F8DH8AG
E88A46G@8AGFB9G;8FG4GHG8
&A68 4:4<A G;8 BHEG 46>ABJ?87:87 G;4G G;8 4:8A6y’s
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA7B8FABGA887GB58G;8431>CBFF<5?8<AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9
)
,
*
'<8GEHFM><8J<6M 8:57& note 27, at 34 (“Scholars, as well as couEGF G8A7 GB I<8J
G4K4G<BA4F4HA<DH84E84HAGB<GF8?94F46BAF8DH8A68B9<GFHA<DH8A8FF4A4A4?LF<F
<A4G4K64F87B8FABGGE4AF?4G8<AGB789<A<A:FG4A74E7F<A4ABAG4KE8?4G8764F8
A
GHEA4A4A4?LF<F4CC?<645?8BHGF<78G;8G4K4E847B8FABG4CC?LGB4A4A4?LF<F<A4G4K
controversy.”).
Nat’l Muffler,
*
4G
)4G
)4G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
4FG4GHG8<GA88758@8E8?L4E84FBA45?8BA8
A6BAGE4FGGB84E?<8E
CE86878AG ;BJ8I8E J;4G @4L 6BAFG<GHG8 4 E84FBA45?8
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA@4L8IB?I8BI8EG<@8
.;<?8G;8BHEG6BAG<AH87GB
I4?H8“6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF6BAFGEH6G<BA”4A76BAG<AH<GL<AE8:H?4GBEL
8A9BE68@8AG<G4?FB46>ABJ?87:87G;8A8879BE4:8A6L9?8K<5<?<GL
A :E4AG<A: =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 G;8 BHEG JEBG8 G;4G G;8 )*
Commissioner’s interpretation of the term “5HF<A8FF?84:H8”
23IB?I87 4F G;8 B@@<FF<BA8E 47@<A<FG8E87 G;8 FG4GHG8
4A74GG8@CG87GB:<I8GB4A8JC;E4F846BAG8AGG;4GJBH?7
E89?86G6BA:E8FF<BA4?78F<:A
+;8E8:H?4G<BA;4FFGBB79BE
L84EF 4A7 G;8 B@@<FF<BA8E <A9E8DH8AG?L 5HG 6BAF<FG8AG?L
;4F <AG8ECE8G87 <G GB 8K6?H78 4A BE:4A<M4G<BA ?<>8 G;8
FFB6<4G<BAG;4G<FABG<A7HFGELJ<78
.<G;BHG 454A7BA<A: <GF E8?<4A68 BA 6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF
6BAFGEH6G<BAG;8BHEGABJ4??BJ87 7898E8A68GB 5854F87ABGBA
G;86BAFG4AG4CC?<64G<BAB94:8A6LE8:H?4G<BAF5HGBAG;8A868FF4EL
8IB?HG<BA B9 G;8 G8E@F 4G <FFH8
+;<F 9?8K<5<?<GL =HFG<9<64G<BA J4F
FHCCBEG87 5L G;8 A8J 9E4@<A: B9 6BA:E8FF<BA4? 78?8:4G<BA B9
4HG;BE<GL F<A68 BA:E8FF 4??B64G87 I4FG :E4AGF B9 4HG;BE<GL GB G;8
)*FBG;4G<G6BH?78A46GG;84CCEBCE<4G8E8:H?4G<BAF<A?<:;GB9G;8
“?<@<G?8FF 946GH4? I4E<4G<BAF” <G FG4A7F GB E84FBA G;4G G;8 4:8A6L
A88787GB5845?8GB8IB?I8<GFFG4A74E7F
A6BAGE4FGGBG;8BG;8E7898E8A68E8:<@8F7<F6HFF87<AG;<FABG8
&9.43&1 :++1*7 <F AB ?BA:8E E86B:A<M87 4F 4 F8C4E4G8 7898E8AG<4?
FG4A74E7 5L G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG
.;<?8 G;8 BHEG 7<7 6BAG<AH8 GB
)
) (“A regulation may have particular force if it is a substantially
6BAG8@CBE4A8BHF6BAFGEH6G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG85LG;BF8CE8FH@87GB;4I8588A4J4E8
of congressional intent.”).
)4G
)
)4G
3
!
6<G8 &9.43&1:++1*74F49BE@B9 7898E8A68<AF8I8E4?CBFG-*;743
*HCE8@8 BHEG 64F8FG;<F ?<A8 B9 CE86878AG 5864@8 @H77?87 4F
G;8 BHEG 58:4A 6<G<A: GB -*;743 <A F8I8E4? 64F8F <AIB?I<A:
E8:H?4G<BAF 5L G;8 +E84FHEL 8C4EG@8AG
A G;8 BHEG
789<A<G<I8?L BI8EEH?87 &9.43&1 :++1*7 <A &>4 4:3)&9.43 +47
*).(&1 ):(&9.43 *8*&7(- ; !3.9*) 9&9*F9<A7<A: G;4G G;8E8
J4F AB E84FBA 9BE 6BAG<AH<A: GB 4CC?L 4 7<998E8AG 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7 GB G;8 +E84FHEL 8C4EG@8AG G;4A J4F 4CC?<87 GB BG;8E
9878E4? 4:8A6<8F
.;<?8 &9.43&1 :++1*7 @4L AB ?BA:8E 64EEL
CE86878AG<4? J8<:;G G;8 78@<F8 B9 G;8 &9.43&1 :++1*7 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7@4LF8EI84F4J<A7BJ<AGBG;8@<A7B9G;8BHEGBA;BJ
GB4CC?LG;8BG;8E7898E8A68FG4A74E7F
&>44:3)&9.43FG4A7F9BE
G;8 CEBCBF<G<BA G;4G 4?? 4:8A6<8F F;BH?7 58 FH5=86G GB 4 HA<9BE@
7898E8A68FG4A74E7
"
), %&)$,#+ '#)%) $*
+;8 BHEG <A &>4 4:3)&9.43 FH::8FG87 4 J<??<A:A8FF BA G;8
C4EGB9G;8*HCE8@8BHEGGB9B?74??CE88K<FG<A:7898E8A68E8:<@8F
<AGB G;8 -*;743*&) BE -*;7430.)247* 7<6;BGB@L
A <GF
899BEG GB CHF; G;8 CE86878AG GBJ4E7F 4 HA<9BE@ 7898E8A68 E8:<@8
, ,A<G87 *G4G8F I
?8I8?4A7 A7<4AF 4F854?? B
,
*
,A<G87B@<A<BA A7HF
A6
I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
BGG4:8*4I
Ass’n v. Comm’r, 499,
*
,A<G87 *G4G8F I
BL?8 ,
*
6<G<A: -*;743 8K6?HF<I8?L J;8A
considering Treasury regulation); Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Comm’r, 523 U.S. 382, 387
6<G<A:5BG;-*;7434A7499&,*&;.3,8884(.&9.43G;8?4GG8E58<A:464F8G;4G
E8?<878K6?HF<I8?LBA&9.43&1:++1*7
,
*
)4G;B?7<A:G;4GCBFG-*;7436<G4G<BAFB9&9.43&1:++1*77<7ABG=HFG<9L<GF
6BAG<AH878K<FG8A68
)at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[W384E8ABG<A6?<A87GB64EI8BHG4A
4CCEB46;GB47@<A<FGE4G<I8E8I<8J:BB79BEG4K?4JBA?L
+BG;86BAGE4ELJ8;4I8
8KCE8FF?LE86B:A<M87G;8<@CBEG4A68B9@4<AG4<A<A:4HA<9BE@4CCEB46;GB =H7<6<4?
review of administrative action.”).
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
G;8 BHEG <A &>4 4:3)&9.43 6<G87 GB CE86878AG 9EB@ BI8E ;4?9 4
68AGHELCE<BE9EB@4G<@8J;8E8G;8E8J4FABG;<A:4CCEB46;<A:4
F<A:H?4E 7898E8A68 E8:<@8 GB 4E:H8 G;4G G;8 BHEG ;47 ?BA: F<A68
CHEFH87 4 CB?<6L B9 7898E8A68 HA<9BE@<GL 4A7 FH::8FG G;4G FH6; 4
:B4?<F78F<E45?8
+;8 E84?<GL B9 G;8 7898E8A68 CE86878AG ;BJ8I8E E8@4<AF 4
DH4:@<E8 4F G;8 BHEG <F 94E 9EB@ 8FG45?<F;<A: 4 F<A:?8
-*;7430.)247* 7898E8A68 E8:<@8
+;8 6BAG<AH87 6<G4G<BA B9
BG;8E FG4A74E7F 9B??BJ<A: -*;743 @4L 58 8KC?4<A87 4J4L 5L G;8
946GG;4GG;8BHEG7<7ABG<A<G<4??LI<8JG;864F84F8FG45?<F;<A:4AL
GLC8 B9 E8IB?HG<BA <A 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 ?4J FH6; E84FBA<A: FH::8FGF
G;4G F<A68 -*;743 J4F ABG <A<G<4??L 6BAF<78E87 C4E47<:@ F;<9G<A:
CE86878AG G;8 BHEG JBH?7 6;BBF8 J;8G;8E GB <AIB>8 -*;743 <A
G;8 F4@8 @4AA8E <G 6;BF8 J;8G;8E GB <AIB>8 BG;8E CE88K<FG<A:
9BE@FB97898E8A68
9G;<FJ8E8GEH8G;8ABA8JBH?78KC86GG;4G
BA68 G;8 “E8IB?HG<BA4EL” <@C?<64G<BAF B9 -*;743 J8E8 E86B:A<M87
) 6<G<A: <6><AFBA I
1HE>B ,
*
*><AA8E I
$<7@
'<C8?<A8B
,
*
** F>E<7:8 48E 8:57& ABG8 4G 64?6H?4G<A: G;4G G;8 BHEG 6<G87 GB
CE8-*;743 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F J<G; 8DH4? 9E8DH8A6L 5BG; 589BE8 4A7 49G8E G;8
Court’s decision in *&) !H7 $4G;8JF *+*7*3(* 499*7.*8 +/
#
)-
51 (2013) (“[E]ven when a court purports to operate within a given deference
E8:<@8<G <FABG6?84E G;4G G;8FG4A74E7F4E84CC?<87 6BAF<FG8AG?L9EB@64F8GB64F8
@C<E<64?JBE>;4F6BA9<E@87G;4G6BHEGFB9G8A94<?GB4CC?L7898E8A68FG4A74E7F<A
6<E6H@FG4A68F J;8E8 G;8<E BJA 7B6GE<A8 <A7<64G8F G;8L F;BH?7
$BE8BI8E 6BHEGF
6BAG<AH8 GB 4CC?L BG;8E 7898E8A68 7B6GE<A8F <A FC86<4? 6BAG8KGF 7E<I<A: G;8
CE87<6G45<?<Gy of judicial practice further down.”).
$4G;8JF 8:57& note 145, at 1360 (“Chevron attracted limited notice at first, but
49G8E<GF8AG;HF<4FG<647BCG<BA5LG;8
<E6H<G4A7<GF<A6E84F<A:CBCH?4E<GLBAG;8
*HCE8@8BHEG<GF8?9<GFCBG8AG<4?GB5EB478AG;8F6BC8B97898E8A684A7F<@C?<9LG;8
analysis quickly became apparent.”); Criddle, 8:57& note 2, at 1279 (“Chevron’s
GJBFG8C9BE@H?44CC4E8AG?LJ4FABG4FBHE68 B96BAG8AG<BA4@BA:G;8!HFG<68FAB
6BA6HEE<A:BE7<FF8AG<A:BC<A<BAF466B@C4A<87G;8 786<F<BA4A7G;8 58FG4I4<?45?8
evidence suggests that it was not even discussed during the Court’s internal
78?<58E4G<BAF
+;HF G;8E8 <F ?<GG?8 E84FBA GB 58?<8I8 G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG 8AI<F<BA87
Chevron’s twoFG8C 9BE@H?4 4F 4ALG;<A: @BE8 G;4A 4 @B78FG E8FG4G8@8AG B9 G;8
Court’s deference doctrines.”).
3
!
5LG;8BHEG<GJBH?7684F86<G<A:GBCE8-*;743CE86878AG4FG<@8
J8AG BA
08G G;<F ;4F ABG 588A G;8 64F8
?G8EA4G<I8?L <G @4L 58
G;4G G;8F8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F 6BAG<AH8 GB 58 6<G87 <A FC86<4?<M87
CE46G<68 4E84F ?<>8 ?45BE GE84GL <AG8ECE8G4G<BA 4A7 6E<@<A4?
F8AG8A6<A: 5864HF8 CE46G<G<BA8EF 6BAG<AH8 GB 6<G8 G;8@ 4A7 G;8
E8I<8J<A:6BHEGF9B??BJFH<G
)8:4E7?8FF B9 G;8 E84FBA 9BE G;8 6BAG<AH<A: E8?<4A68 BA
CE8-*;743CE86878AG6BHEGF4E86BEE86GGB7BFB
!H7<6<4?E8I<8JB9
4:8A6L 46G<BAF <F 4A 8FF8AG<4? 6;86> BA G;8 5HE84H6E4G<6 CBJ8E B9
G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8
.;<?8 G;8E8 4E8 F8I8E4? E84FBAF GB
FHCCBEG =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 G;8F8 =HFG<9<64G<BAF 7B ABG 4?? J4EE4AG
4CC?L<A: 4 HA<9BE@ 7898E8A68 E8:<@8 GB G;8 I4FG HA<I8EF8 B9
different agencies’ actions.+;8 @B78EA 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8 <F 4
6BAFG8??4G<BAB9<A78C8A78AG4A78K86HG<I84:8A6<8FJ<G;8KC4AF<I8
4A7 BI8E?4CC<A: CBEG9B?<BF
+;8 I4E<87 =HFG<9<64G<BAF 9BE =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68 7B ABG 4CC?L HA<9BE@?L GB 4?? 46G<BAF G4>8A 5L G;8
47@<A<FGE4G<I8FG4G89BEG;E88F<:A<9<64AGE84FBAF7<F6HFF87<A78G4<?
58?BJ
<EFG4:8A6L8KC8EG<F8<FABGHA<9BE@?L7<FGE<5HG8758GJ88A
4:8A6<8F <A 4?? <FFH8 4E84F
:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8 J;<6; <F ?4E:8?L
** F>E<7:8 48E 8:57& ABG8 4G 7<F6HFF<A: G;8 6BAG<AH87 4A7
6BAF<FG8AG4CC?<64G<BAB9F8I8E4?7<998E8AG9BE@FB97898E8A68CBFG-*;743
4A>F $<??8E E8GG HEEL =5*798 :),.3, =5*798 -* 41* 4+ =5*79.8* .3
*;.*<.3,,*3(>*(.8.43&0.3, #. *&
%(, )0 9<A7<A:
G;4G=H7:8F94@<?<4EJ<G; G;8FH5=86G@4GG8E4G <FFH84E8@BE8?<>8?LGBDH8FG<BAG;8
786<F<BAB9G;84:8A6L4A7G;8L4E8@BE8J<??<A:GB7898EJ;8AG;8L?46>8KC8EG<F8
)
***G8I8A !
?8I8?4A7 *8:77*(9.3,4:79*+*7*3(*949-**(:7.9.*8&3)=(-&3,*
422ission: Definition of “Security” +
,
#
)-
273, 276 (2013) (“Congress
8@CBJ8E87846;4:8A6L7<998E8AG?L4A7FG4GHGBEL8I<78A68B9G;8CBJ8EF78?8:4G87
GB 4 C4EG<6H?4E 4:8A6L <A9BE@F G;8 4A4?LF<F B9 J;8G;8E BA:E8FF :E4AG87 G;4G
C4EG<6H?4E4:8A6Lthe authority to speak to its own jurisdiction.”).
** Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 487 (1952) (Jackson, J.,
dissenting) (“The rise of administrative bodies probably has been the most
F<:A<9<64AG?8:4?GE8A7B9G;8?4FG68AGHEL4A7C8E;4CF@BE8I4?H8FGB74L4E849986G87
5LG;8<E786<F<BAFG;4A5LG;BF8B94??G;86BHEGFE8I<8JB947@<A<FGE4G<I8786<F<BAF
apart. They also have begun to have important consequences on personal rights.”).
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
premised on the agencies’ familiarity with the provisions it is
E8:H?4E?LG4F>87J<G;47@<A<FG8E<A:<FABG<AA4G8GBG;8<AFG<GHG<BA
A @4AL 6<E6H@FG4A68F G;8 4:8A6L <F <AG8ECE8G<A: 4A7 4CC?L<A:
CEBI<F<BAF G;4G G;8 4:8A6L ;4F E8?4G<I8?L ?<GG?8 8KC8E<8A68 <A
47@<A<FG8E<A:
Second, administrative agencies’ actions frequently
?<84GG;8<AG8EF86G<BAB9I4E<BHF7898E8A68E8:<@8FJ;<6;J4EE4AGF
=H7<6<4? 6BAF<78E4G<BA B9 F8I8E4? 946GBEF J;8A 78G8E@<A<A: G;8
4CCEBCE<4G8 9BE@ B9 7898E8A68
A7 9<A4??L G;8E8 4E8 FH5FG4AG<4?
FGEH6GHE4?7<998E8A68F58GJ88A<A78C8A78AG4A78K86HG<I84:8A6<8F
G;4G HA78E@<A8 BE <A6E84F8 G;8<E ?8I8? B9 78@B6E4G<6
accountability, a major factor in the Court’s recent deference
=HE<FCEH78A68
,*3(>=5*79.8*
BHEGF4A746478@<6F4?<>89E8DH8AG?L6<G8G;8E8?4G<I88KC8EG<F8
B9 G;8 4:8A6L 4F 4 =HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE 7898E8A68
:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8
J4F 4CEB@<A8AG =HFG<9<64G<BA<A *9-87&*10.)247*&<(:8
4A7-*;743+;8BHEGE8<9<87G;<F8@C;4F<FBA4:8A6L8KC8EG<F8
<A&>44:3)&9.43 J;8E8 <G JEBG8 G;4G “2J38 F88 AB E84FBA J;L
BHE E8I<8J B9 G4K E8:H?4G<BAF F;BH?7 ABG 58 :H<787 5L 4:8A6L
, '<8GEHFM><8J<6M 8:57& ABG8 4G <AGernal citations omitted) (“The
E4G<BA4?8 9BE 7898E8A68 <F 54F87 BA G;8 FG4A7<A: B9 G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 4:8A6L
A
4:8A6L 78G8E@<A4G<BA F8EI8F ABG @8E8?L 4F G;8 BC<A<BA B9 FB@8 @8A BE 8I8A B9 4
?BJ8EGE<5HA4?5HG4FG;8BC<A<BAB9G;85B7L8FC86<4??L94@<?<4EJ<G;G;8CEB5?8@F
dealt with by the statute and burdened with the duty of enforcing it.”).
8G; FE
BFC
I
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
*
*><7@BE8I
*J<9GB
,
*
4J6HF$46;
B
I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
;8IEBA ,
*
A6
I
%4GHE4? )8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
(“Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the
BI8EA@8AG
BHEGF@HFG<AFB@864F8FE86BA6<?86B@C8G<A:CB?<G<64?<AG8E8FGF5HG
not on the basis of the judges’ personal policy preferences. In contrast, an agency to
J;<6;BA:E8FF;4F78?8:4G87CB?<6L@4><A:E8FCBAF<5<?<G<8F@4LJ<G;<AG;8?<@<GF
B9G;4G78?8:4G<BACEBC8E?LE8?LHCBAG;8<A6H@58At administration’s views of wise
policy to inform its judgments.”).
3
!
8KC8EG<F8 CHEFH4AG GB -*;743 GB G;8 F4@8 8KG8AG 4F BHE E8I<8J B9
BG;8E E8:H?4G<BAF
” This quote encapsulates the Court’s notion
G;4G4:8A6L8KC8EG<F8I<8J874F8DH4??L6BAF<FG8AG4@BA:4:8A6<8F
8AG<G?8F4:8A6<8FGB8DH4?7898E8A68
*H6; 8KC8EG<F8 ;BJ8I8E 7B8F ABG 8K<FG <A 4?? G;8 4E84F B9 ?4J
J;8E8 4:8A6<8F 46G
<I8A G;8 F;88E DH4AG<GL B9 G4F>F 4FF<:A87 GB
4:8A6<8F<G<F<@CBFF<5?89BEG;8@GB584A8KC8EG<A4??B9<G
A&3
7&3(.8(4 ; -**-&3 G;8 BHEG J4F G4F>87 J<G; 78G8E@<A<A:
J;8G;8E GJB *4A E4A6<F6B 'B?<68 B99<68EF 4A7 G;8 <GL B9 *4A
E4A6<F6BI<B?4G87G;8@8E<64AFJ<G;<F45<?<G<8F6G5LFH57H<A:
4 JB@4A FH998E<A: 9EB@ F6;<MB49986G<I8 7<FBE78E <A 4 @4AA8E G;4G
7<7 ABG E84FBA45?L 466B@@B74G8 ;8E 7<F45<?<GL
A BE78E GB
E8FB?I8G;<F64F8G;8BHEG9<EFG;47GB78G8E@<A8J;8G;8E+<G?8 B9
the Americans with Disabilities Act applied to officers’ onG;8FGE88G
E8FCBAF8F GB E8CBEG87 7<FGHE54A68F
A G;8 CEB68FF B9 7<F68EA<A:
G;8 4@5<:H<GL <A G;8 FG4GHG8 G;8 BHEG @478 AB @8AG<BA B9
7898E8A68 to the City of San Francisco’s interpretation of the
@8E<64AF J<G; <F45<?<G<8F 6G
ABG;8E 8K4@C?8 ;<:;?<:;GF G;4G
9878E4?4:8A6<8F4E8ABG499BE787=H7<6<4?7898E8A68<AG;8<E7HG<8FGB
6E84G8 E84FBA45?8 466B@@B74G<BAF HA78E G;8 A G;8
6?4FF46G<BA ?4JFH<G 7&3(443?&1*? ; 41)*7 4 7<FGE<6G 6BHEG
499BE787 AB 7898E8A68 B9 4AL ><A7 GB 4A 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9
“E84FBA45?8 466B@@B74G<BAF” HA78E G;8 )8;45<?<G4G<BA 6G
+;8
6BHEG 9BHA7 G;4G G;8 C?4<AG<99 6?4FF J;<6; J4F 6B@CE<F87 B9
78G4<A87<@@<:E4AGF<78AG<9<87GB;4I84F8E<BHF@8AG4?7<FBE78EBE
78986G J;<6; E8A78E87 G;8@ <A6B@C8G8AG GB E8CE8F8AG G;8@F8?I8F
FH998E87 <EE8C4E45?8 ;4E@ 4F 4 6BAF8DH8A68 B9 ABG 58<A: 499BE787
$4LBBHA7
9BE$87
7H6
)8F84E6;I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
*
G
)4G
)4G
%B
.#
4?
CE
)
4G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
@8AG4? ;84?G; F6E88A<A: 4A7 ?8:4? E8CE8F8AG4G<BA
+;8 4:8A6L
@@<:E4G<BA 4A7 HFGB@F A9BE68@8AG J;<6; J4F G4F>87 J<G;
78G4<A<A: 4A7 F6E88A<A: G;8 78G4<A87 <@@<:E4AG CBCH?4G<BA ;47
<AG8ECE8G87G;8)8;45<?<G4G<BA6G<AE8DH<E<A:?8:4?E8CE8F8AG4G<BA
9BE <A7<I<7H4?F J;B 4E8 ABG 6B@C8G8AG GB E8CE8F8AG G;8@F8?I8F
.;<?8 E8:H?4E?L 4CCE8;8A7F 4A7 78G4<AF <A7<I<7H4?F HA78E
I4E<BHFFG4GHG8FB9G;8 @@<:E4G<BA4A7%4G<BA4?<GL6G<G7B8FABG
E8:H?4E?L <AG8ECE8G 4A7 4CC?L G;8 )8;45<?<G4G<BA 6G 8I8A 4F G;8
?4GG8EFG4GHG84?FB:BI8EAF<GFCE46G<68F
+;8@8E<64AFJ<G;<F45<?<G<8F6G4A7)8;45<?<G4G<BA6G4E8
ABGG;8BA?LFG4GHG8F6E84G875LBA:E8FFGBE87E8FF7<F6E<@<A4G<BA
*<A68 G;8 F BA:E8FF ;4F 8A46G87 FG4GHG8F FH6; 4F G;8 <I<?
)<:;GF 6G B9 -BG<A: )<:;GF 6G B9 :8
<F6E<@<A4G<BA <A @C?BL@8AG 6G B9 4A7 G;8 'E8:A4A6L
<F6E<@<A4G<BA 6G B9 .;<?8 @4AL B9 G;8F8 6<I<? E<:;GF
FG4GHG8F J8E8 FC86<9<64??L G4F>87 GB C4EG<6H?4E 4:8A6<8F 9BE G;8<E
<@C?8@8AG4G<BA F8I8E4? 4?FB <@CBF87 E8DH<E8@8AGF BA 4??
:BI8EA@8AG4:8A6<8F
,A?<>8BG;8E4E84FB9?4JJ;8E86BHEGF4E8
@BE8 J<??<A: GB 7898E GB G;8 G86;A<64? >ABJ?87:8 B9 <A7HFGEL
8KC8EGF <A G;8 6<I<? E<:;GF 6BAG8KG G;8 8KC8EG<F8 ?<8F J<G; G;8
)4G
)
4G
'H5
#
%B
*G4G
–6B7<9<874F4@8A7874G,
*
NN
GB;
'H5
#
%B
*G4G6B7<9<874G,*NN55
'H5
#
%B
*G4G6B7<9<874G,*NN
'H5
#
%B
N*G4G
6B7<9<874G,
*
N8>
, +<G?8 - B9 G;8 <I<? )<:;GF 6G ,
*
N 7 CEB;<5<G<A: E46<4?
discrimination in “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”);
8**,*3*7&11>8EGE4??#
)BFF *3>.3,*+*7*3(*.;.1.,-98&3):).(.&1*8.89&3(*94
)2.3.897&9.;*4389.9:9.43&1.82,
## 7<F6HFF<A:G;8
4:8A6<8FCE<@4E<?LE8FCBAF<5?89BE8A9BE6<A:@4=BE<I<?)<:;GF?8:<F?4G<BA
**Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 423 F.3d 989, 997 (9th Cir.
2005) (“This is a determination that is scientific in nature and is entitled to the most
deference on review.”); Jason J. Czarnezki 3 25.7.(&1 3;*89.,&9.43 4+ :).(.&1
*(.8.432&0.3, 9&9:947> 39*757*9&9.43 &3) 9-* ;8IEBA 4(97.3* .3 3;.7432*39&1
3
!
6BHEGF 4A7 ABG J<G; G;8 4:8A6<8F
A 64F8F <AIB?I<A: <FFH8F B9 6<I<?
E<:;GF HA78E FH6; FG4GHG8F E8I<8J<A: 6BHEGF 4CC?L =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68 <A6BAF<FG8AG?L
The courts’ concern with the relative
?46> B9 4:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8 <F ABG ?<@<G87 8K6?HF<I8?L GB 6<I<? E<:;GF
64F8F
A *9- 87&*1 9BE <AFG4A68 GJB 6BA6HEE<A: @<ABE<G<8F
expressed concern with perceived limitations in the NLRB’s
HA78EFG4A7<A: 4A7 4A4?LF<F B9 G;8 8@C?BL88 ?45BE@4A4:8@8AG
CEB5?8@F 4G ;BFC<G4?F :8A8E4??L
.;<?8 G;8 @4=BE<GL B9 G;8 BHEG
decided that the NLRB’s exp8EG<F8<A?45BE@4A4:8@8AG<FFH8FJ4F
sufficient justification, this valuation of the NLRB’s respective
8KC8EG<F8J4F6BAG8AG<BHF
HEG;8E@BE8<98KC8EG<F8<FGEH?L4 78G8E@<A4G<I8B97898E8A68
<G JBH?7 FH::8FG G;4G FC86<4?<M87 6BHEGF F;BH?7 7898E GB 4:8A6L
78G8E@<A4G<BAF8<G;8E?8FF 9E8DH8AG?LBE<AFB@87<FF<@<?4E@4AA8E
G;4A :8A8E4?<FG 6BHEGF
,A78E G;<F ?B:<6 878E4? +4K BHEG 4A7
878E4? ?4<@F BHEG JBH?7 58 8<G;8E 8K8@CG 9EB@ 4CC?L<A:
7898E8A68<AG4K64F8FJ;8E85BG;6BHEGF;4I8FH5FG4AG<4?8KC8EG<F8
BE8KC86G87GB4CC?L47<998E8AG9BE@B97898E8A68
*H6;4FLFG8@
&<,
&#&
#
)-
767, 823 (2008) (“The circuits have shown, however, a strong
J<??<A:A8FF GB 7898E HA78E 4AL 7B6GE<A8 BE 9E4@8JBE> GB 4:8A6L 46G<BA J;8A
environmental scientific expertise is required.”).
)BFF8:57&ABG84G
8G; FE
BFC
I
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
*
?46>@HA!
concurring) (“I entertain distinct doubts about whether t;8 B4E7 <A <GF
CE8B66HC4G<BA J<G; ?45BE@4A4:8@8AG CEB5?8@F ;4F CEBC8E?L F8AF87 4A7
appreciated the true hospital operation and its atmosphere and the institution’s
purpose and needs.”); .)4G15 (Powell, J. concurring) (citations omitted) (“In my
view, the Board’s ‘accommodation’ of the competing interests in St. John’s 94<?F GB
:<I84CCEBCE<4G8J8<:;GGBG;8HA<DH86;4E46G8E<FG<6FB94;BFC<G4?
G4@BHAGFGBAB
@BE8 G;4A 4A 4CC?<64G<BA B9 G;8 *5:'1.(;.&9.43 EH?8 GB 68EG4<A 4E84F B9 4 ;BFC<G4?
5HGABGBG;8EF78FC<G8G;8946GG;4G@8@58EFB9G;8CH5?<64E8CE8F8AG4A7CBG8AG<4??L
affected even in areas of a hospital not characterized as ‘strictly patient care’ areas.”).
** #<A74 4??8E :).(.&1 *+*7*3(* 94 *;*3:* :1.3,8 *(43(.1.3, .;*7,*39
9&3)&7)8& &*+
#
!
1037, 1070 (1995) (“[T]he IRS is more expert in the tax law
G;4A 4E8 =H7:8F J<G; G;8 B5I<BHF 8K68CG<BA B9 +4K BHEG =H7:8F 4A7 4AL BG;8E
judges who may happen to have substantial tax practice experience).”). A similar
?B:<66BH?7584CC?<87GBG;8
<E6H<G6BHEGJ;<6;6BAF<78EF@BE847@<A<FGE4G<I8
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
J4F 4E:H45?L <A C?468 J<G; G;8 HA<DH8 &<(:8&9.43&1 :++1*7
7898E8A68 E8:<@8 J;<6; J4F 4CC?<87 GB G4K 64F8F
+;8 *HCE8@8
BHEG ;BJ8I8E 7<F4IBJ87 FH6; CE46G<68F <A &>4 4:3)&9.43 $BE8BI8EG;8BHEG;4FCB?<687G;85BHA74E<8FB94:8A6L8KC8EG<F8
J<G;E8:4E7FGBG4KFG4GHG8F
A:7<*11G;8BHEGC4EG<4??L=HFG<9<87
<GF786<F<BAABGGB:E4AGG;8 )*4AL7898E8A68BAG;8ABG<BAG;4G<G
J4F “8FC86<4??L HA?<>8?L G;4G BA:E8FF JBH?7 ;4I8 78?8:4G87 G;<F
786<F<BA GB G;8 )* J;<6; ;4F AB 8KC8EG<F8 <A 6E49G<A: ;84?G;
<AFHE4A68CB?<6LB9G;<FFBEG
”+;8E89BE8J;8G;8EBEABGBA:E8FF
78?8:4G87 4HG;BE<GL GB 4A 4:8A6L <A 4 FG4GHG8 <F 78C8A78AG BA G;8
agency’s expertise in administering su6;FG4GHG8F
39*78*(9.3,*+*7*3(**,.2*8
.;<?8 G;8 BHEG <A -*;743 6BAF<78E87 4A 4:8A6L 46G<BA <A 4A
4E84 B9 ?4J G;4G J4F 6?84E?L J<G;<A AI<EBA@8AG4? 'EBG86G<BA
Agency’s purview, such clear demarcations of legal issues and
CE46G<68 4E84F 4E8 ABG 4?J4LF CE8F8AG
+;8 CBEG9B?<BF B97HG<8F 4A7
E8FCBAF<5<?<G<8F G4F>87 GB 9878E4? 4:8A6<8F 4E8 I4FG 4A7 64A B9G8A
BI8E?4CJ<G;I4E<BHF?8:4?4E84F4A7E8FCBAF<5<?<G<8FG4F>87GBBG;8E
4:8A6<8F
+;<F?8:4?BI8E?4C;4F?87GB<A6BAF<FG8AG4CC?<64G<BAFB9
64F8F G;4A 4AL B9 G;8 BG;8E 9878E4? 6<E6H<GF <A G;8 6BHAGEL 4F 4 CEBCBEG<BA B9 64F8F
;84E7 5L G;8 6BHEG
** E<6 $
E4F8E 8G
4?
-* :7.8).(9.43 4+ 9-* .7(:.9 &)%## !
#
',
'&#’0 131, 132 n.3 (2013) (“Although the percentage of
47@<A<FGE4G<I8 ?4J 64F8F A4G<BAJ<78 ;4F 786?<A87 FB@8J;4G <A E868AG L84EF
C8G<G<BAF 9BE E8I<8J B9 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 786<F<BAF 9<?87 <A G;8 <E6H<G ;4I8
<A6E84F87 9EB@ GJ8AGL8<:;G C8E68AG B9 G;8 A4G<BA4? GBG4? <A GB 4 ;<:; B9
G;<EGL8<:;GC8E68AG<A4A7G;<EGLsix percent in 2010.”).
$4LBBHA7
9BE$87
7H6
)8F84E6;I
,A<G87*G4G8F,
*
"<A:I
HEJ8??*
G
6<G<A: BAM4?8FI
&E8:BA,
*
–
$8?4A<8 .4?>8E 43,7*88.43&1 39*39 &3) *+*7*3(* 94 ,*3(> 39*757*9&9.438 4+
*,:1&9.438,
#
)-. 1341, 1364 (1999) (“As the federal government attempts
GB 6HG 7BJA BA G;8 F<M8 B9 G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8 5L 7<F@4AG?<A: 7HC?<64G<I8
4:8A6<8F 4A7 6BA68AGE4G<A: 4HG;BE<GL BI8E FG4GHG8F 6BA68EA<A: 4 F<@<?4E FH5=86G
@4GG8E<ABA84:8A6L<GFB@8G<@8FGE4AF98EF4HG;BE<GLBI8E4FG4GHG89EB@BA84:8A6L
to another.”).
3
!
G;8 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F <A 68EG4<A 6<E6H@FG4A68F ?84I<A: E8I<8J<A:
6BHEGFGBC4EF8BHGJ;<6;9BE@B97898E8A68GB499BE7G;84:8A6L
&A8 FH6; 8K4@C?8 <F <A G;8 6BAG8KG B9 78G8AG<BA B9 ABA6<G<M8AF
*<A68 <@@<:E4G<BA CB?<6L <F E86B:A<M87 4F ;4I<A: FH5FG4AG<4?
<@C?<64G<BAF 9BE ,
*
9BE8<:A E8?4G<BAF 4A7 A4G<BA4? F86HE<GL
:79.88#7.,-9 7898E8A68 <F 9E8DH8AG?L 8@C?BL87 <A <@@<:E4G<BA
64F8F
@@<:E4G<BA ;BJ8I8E 4?FB 9E8DH8AG?L <@C?<64G8F ;H@4A
E<:;GF 4A7 6E<@<A4? =HFG<68 <FFH8F J;<6; G8A7 GBJ4E7F ?8FF
7898E8AG<4? FG4A74E7F 4F 8I<78A687 5L G;8 EH?8 B9 ?8A<GL
+;<F
BI8E?4C58GJ88AA4G<BA4?F86HE<GL9BE8<:A4994<EF6E<@<A4??4J4A7
<@@<:E4G<BA?4J<F64CGHE87<A64F8FFH6;4F&2)&3;:28+*1)
J;8E8G;8*HCE8@8BHEGJ4FG4F>87J<G;78G8E@<A<A:J;8G;8E4A
4?<8A ;8?7 HA78E 6;4E:8F B9 G8EEBE<F@ 6BH?7 4CC?L 9BE ;4584F
E8?<89
!HFG<68 *G8I8AF JE<G<A: 9BE 4 ;84I<?L 7<I<787 BHEG
concluded that the government’s argument regarding the
=HE<F7<6G<BAFGE<CC<A: A4GHE8 B9 G;8 8G4<A88 +E84G@8AG 6G J4F
HA6BAI<A6<A:
Despite the executive’s authority over foreign
4994<EF J;<6; @<:;G FH::8FG :79.88#7.,-9 7898E8A68 4CC?<87 G;8
, '4H?8L I
8G; A8E:L $<A8F A6
,
*
;B?7<A: G;4G J;8A
4:8A6<8F4E8G4F>87J<G;<AG8ECE8G<A:4FG4GHG84G7<998E8AGCB<AGF<AG<@87898E8A68<F
499BE787GBG;8@BE8E868AG4:8A6L<AG8ECE8G4G<BA
,E<MBA4I
,A<G87*G4G8F*
G
) (“The Government of the
,A<G87*G4G8F;4F5EB47HA7BH5G87CBJ8EBI8EG;8FH5=86GB9<@@<:E4G<BA4A7G;8
status of aliens.”); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (“Federal authority to regulate the status of aliens deE<I8F 9EB@ I4E<BHF
sources, including the Federal Government’s power to establish a uniform Rule of
%4GHE4?<M4G<BA<GFCBJ8EGBE8:H?4G8B@@8E68J<G;9BE8<:A%4G<BAF4A7<GF5EB47
authority over foreign affairs.”); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 976) (“Any
EH?8B96BAFG<GHG<BA4??4JG;4GJBH?7<A;<5<GG;89?8K<5<?<GLB9G;8CB?<G<64?5E4A6;8FB9
:BI8EA@8AGGBE8FCBA7GB6;4A:<A:JBE?76BA7<G<BAFF;BH?75847BCG87BA?LJ<G;
G;8:E84G8FG64HG<BA
+;8E84FBAFG;4GCE86?H78=H7<6<4?E8I<8JB9CB?<G<64?DH8FG<BAF
4?FB7<6G4G84A4EEBJFG4A74E7B9E8I<8J B9786<F<BAF@4785L G;8BA:E8FFBEG;8
President in the area of immigration and naturalization.”).
F>E<7:848E8:57&ABG84G
,
*
)4G
)4G
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
Court’s majority granted no deference to the Secretary of Defense’s
<AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 FG4GHG8
!HFG<68 +;B@4F JE<G<A: 9BE G;E88
members of the Court in dissent, argued for the Court’s application
B9:79.88#7.,-9
As immigration status is increasingly tied to individuals’
6E<@<A4?;<FGBEL<@@<:E4G<BA64F8F4?FB9E8DH8AG?L:<I8E<F8GB5BG;
6<I<?4A76E<@<A4?<FFH8F
FH5FG4AG<4?CBEG<BAB9G;88C4EG@8AGB9
Homeland Security’s work consists of categorizing criminal
6BAI<6G<BAF 9EB@ 5BG; FG4G8 4A7 9878E4? 6BHEGF J<G;<A G;8
C4E4@8G8EF 8FG45?<F;87 <A G;8 @@<:E4G<BA 4A7 %4G<BA4?<GL 6G <A
BE78E GB 78G8E@<A8 G;8 <@@<:E4G<BA 6BAF8DH8A68F B9 CE<BE
6BAI<6G<BAF
A *4(&1 ; 8-(74+9 G;8 BHEG J4F G4F>87 J<G;
78G8E@<A<A: J;8G;8E 4 6BAI<6G<BA 9BE 7E<I<A: HA78E G;8 <A9?H8A68
6BAFG<GHG87 4A “4::E4I4G87 98?BAL” HA78E G;8 @@<:E4G<BA 4A7
%4G<BA4?<GL6G
+;8BHEGE8FGE<6G87<GF4A4?LF<FGBG;8?4A:H4:8
B9 G;8 9878E4? FG4GHG8
+;8 BHEG 7<7 ABG :E4AG 7898E8A68 GB G;8
government’s position (nor address it in any meaningful manner)
4A75E<89?L@8AG<BA87G;4GG;8EH?8B9?8A<GL<F4CC?<645?8<94FG4GHG8
;4F6E<@<A4?4CC?<64G<BAF8I8A<9G;8FG4GHG8<F58<A:4CC?<87<A4A
<@@<:E4G<BA 64F8 J;<6; CEB6887<A:F 4E8 6BAF<78E87 6<I<? <A
A4GHE8
+;<F 4CC?<64G<BA B9 4AG<7898E8A68 <A 6<I<? 64F8F <F ABG
?<@<G87 GB <@@<:E4G<BA 64F8F G;8 BHEG <A *4(&1 6<G87 GB 4 64F8
**.)
4G7<F6HFF<A:<@C?<64G<BAFB9<AG8EA4G<BA4??4J4A7GE84G<F8FE8?4G87
to the law of war for the matter at issue; this portion of Justice Stevens’ opinion,
;BJ8I8E J4FABG 5<A7<A: .)
4G "8AA87L!
6BA6HEE<A: <A C4EG 6BA6?H7<A:
G;4GFB@878:E88B97898E8A684?58<G4?BJ9BE@B97898E8A68J4F4CCEBCE<4G8GBG;8
executive’s interpretation of the statute).
)4G+;B@4F!
7<FF8AG<A:
**$BA6E<8998I
B?78E*
G
7<F6HFF<A:G;84A4?LG<64?@8G;B7
5L J;<6; 4A 4:8A6L 78G8E@<A8F J;8G;8E 4 6BAI<6G<BA <F 4 DH4?<9L<A: B998AF8 9BE
<@@<:E4G<BACHECBF8F
,
*
)4G
)
4G
)4GA
3
!
J;8E8G;8BHEG4CC?<87G;8EH?8B9?8A<GLGB4G4KFG4GHG8<A46<I<?
F8GG<A:BAG;8G;8BELG;4GG;8F4@8FG4GHG8;4F6E<@<A4?4CC?<64G<BAF
4A7@HFG588A9BE6876BAF<FG8AG?L
3)*5*3)*39&3)=*(:9.;*,*3(.*8
!HFG4F ABG4??4:8A6<8F4E88DH4??L6B@C8G8AG ABG4??4:8A6<8F
4E88DH4??L466BHAG45?8GBG;8CH5?<6
A-*;743G;8BHEG7898EE87
GBG;8'BI8E<GF789<A<G<BAB94“FG4G<BA4ELFBHE68”4FHF87<AG;8
?84A <E 6G
+;8 786<F<BA E8?<87 ;84I<?L BA G;8 946G G;4G G;8
' 6BH?7 58 ;8?7 78@B6E4G<64??L 466BHAG45?8 G;EBH:; G;8
8K86HG<I84@86;4A<F@G;4G7<7ABG4CC?LGB6BHEGF
The Court’s
emphasis on political accountability, as indicated by the agency’s
E8?4G<BAF;<CGBG;88K86HG<I85E4A6;FH::8FGFG;4GG;8F4@864?6H?HF
9BE7898E8A68@4LABG4CC?L<AG;86BAG8KGB9<A78C8A78AG4:8A6<8F
J;8E8 G;<F E8?4G<BAF;<C <F F>8J87 GBJ4E7F <AFH?4G<A: G;8 4:8A6L
9EB@CB?<G<64?CE8FFHE8
+;8*86HE<G<8F4A7K6;4A:8B@@<FF<BA
“*” 9BE <AFG4A68 <F 4A <A78C8A78AG 4:8A6L 7<E86G87 5L 4
5<C4EG<F4AC4A8?B99<I86B@@<FF<BA8EFF8EI<A:FG4::8E879<I8L84E
G8E@F
K86HG<I8 4:8A6<8F <A 6BAGE4FG 9E8DH8AG?L ;4I8 4 F<A:?8
8K86HG<I84CCB<AG875LG;8CE8F<78AG4A7FH5=86GGBE8@BI4?J<G;BE
J<G;BHG64HF8
+;8*FGEH6GHE8<F<AG8A787GB?<@<GG;845<?<GLB9
CB?<G<64? C4EG<8F 4A7 G;8 8K86HG<I8 GB <A9?H8A68 G;8 46G<BAF B9 G;8
*
.;<?8G;8E8E8@4<A<A7<E86G@86;4A<F@F9BEG;88K86HG<I8GB
)6<G<A:,A<G87*G4G8FI
+;B@CFBAGE
E@FB
,
*
–
C?HE4?<GLBC<A<BA
;8IEBA,
*
A6
I
%4GHE4?)8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
) at 865 (“While agencies are not directly accountable to the peopl8 G;8 ;<89
K86HG<I8<F4A7<G<F8AG<E8?L4CCEBCE<4G89BEG;<FCB?<G<64?5E4A6;B9G;8BI8EA@8AG
to make such policy choices.”).
?8I8?4A78:57&ABG84G
)4G
)
)
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
8K8EG 4HG;BE<GL BI8E <A78C8A78AG 4:8A6<8F G;<F 8K86HG<I8
466BHAG45<?<GL<FF<:A<9<64AG?L4GG8AH4G87
+;8 BHEG ;4F 6BAF<78E87 J;8G;8E GB 499BE7 <A78C8A78AG 4A7
8K86HG<I8 4:8A6<8F G;8 F4@8 ?8I8? B9 7898E8A68
A *)*7&1
422:3.(&9.438 422.88.43 ; 4= *1*;.8.43 9&9.438 3(
!HFG<68
*64?<4JEBG8G;4G7<@<A<F;874:8A6L466BHAG45<?<GLGBG;8CE8F<78AG
<FB9G8A466B@C4A<875L<A6E84F87466BHAG45<?<GLGBG;8?8:<F?4GHE8
4A7 G;4G G;8 BHEG F;BH?7 ABG E86B:A<M8 4AL 7<FG<A6G<BA 58GJ88A
G;8F8GJBGLC8FB94:8A6<8FJ<G;E8:4E7FGB7898E8A68
+;<FJ4F
however, the only section of Justice Scalia’s opinion that failed to
:4EA8E FH99<6<8AG IBG8F GB 6BAFG<GHG8 5<A7<A: CE86878AG
+;8
94<?HE8 GB 6?84E?L 8FG45?<F; G;<F 7<FG<A6G<BA ;4F <@CBEG4AG
<@C?<64G<BAF 9BE *9- 87&*1 7898E8A68 F<A68 G;8 %#) <F 4?FB 4A
<A78C8A78AG4:8A6L
+;8FGEH6GHE8B9G;8%#)J;<6;<FF<@<?4EGB
G;4GB9G;8*<F4?<>8?L8KC?4A4G<BA9BEG;86BAG<AH878K<FG8A68B9
*9-87&*1 7898E8A68 CBFG-*;743. Under Scalia’s proposed
6BA68CGH4?<M4G<BA B9 7898E8A68 ;BJ8I8E G;8E8 JBH?7 58 ?<GG?8
:EBHA7F9BE7<998E8AG<4G<A:G;8%#)9EB@BG;8E8K86HG<I84:8A6<8F
BE G;8 9BE8:B<A: E84FBAF E4G;8E G;4A 8KC4A7 G;8 &>4
4:3)&9.43GB8E47<64G84??CE8-*;7437898E8A68E8:<@8FG;8BHEG
F;BH?7E86B:A<M84F<G7<7<A*&)G;4GG;8E84E8?8:<G<@4G8E84FBAF
) 4G 7<F6HFF<A: @86;4A<F@F 9BE 8K86HG<I8 <A9?H8A68 BI8E G;8 *86HE<G<8F
and Exchange Commission, which include control over the government’s position in
?4JFH<GF E846;<A: G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG <A9BE@4? 6B??45BE4G<I8 E8?4G<BAF;<C <A
EH?8@4><A: 4A7 CE8F<78AG<4? CEBCBF4? B9 5H7:8G 4??B64G<BA GB 4:8A6<8F 8** ?8A4
"4:4A 7*8.)*39.&1 )2.3.897&9.43 )-
#
)-
7<F6HFF<A:G;8<A6E84F87HF8B98K86HG<I85E4A6;4:8A6<8F4F4A8KG8AF<BAB9
the President’s own policy and political agenda to argue for distinguishing betwe8A
executive and independent agencies’ actions).
,
*
C?HE4?<GLBC<A<BA
) at 525 (plurality opinion) (citations omitted) (“Regardless, it is assuredly not
‘applicable law’ that rulemaking by independent regulatory agencies is subjecG GB
;8<:;G8A87 F6EHG<AL
+;8 7@<A<FGE4G<I8 'EB687HE8 6G J;<6; CEBI<78F =H7<6<4?
E8I<8J@4>8FAB7<FG<A6G<BA58GJ88A<A78C8A78AG4A7BG;8E4:8A6<8FA8<G;8E<A<GF
definition of agency, nor in the standards for reviewing agency action.”).
)
4G
3
!
9BE E86B:A<M<A: G;8 6BAG<AH87 8K<FG8A68 B9 @H?G<C?8 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7F
.;<?8 G;8 6HEE8AG FG4GHF B9 G;8F8 I4E<BHF 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7F E8@4<AF @HE>L 4A7 6BA9HF87 G;<F 7B8F ABG FHCCBEG G;8
6BA6?HF<BA G;4G G;8 CE8-*;743 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F F;BH?7 58
454A7BA87<A94IBEB94HA<9BE@FG4A74E7
AFG847G;<F6BA9HF<BA<F
CE8F8AG87GB4E:H8G;4GG;8F8I4E<BHF7898E8A68E8:<@8F6BAG<AH8GB
;4I8?8:<G<@4G8E84FBAF9BE8K<FG<A:4A7G;86BHEGF @HFG78I8?BC4
FLFG8@B94CC?L<A:G;8@6BAF<FG8AG?L
A 78G8E@<A<A: J;<6; 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F F;BH?7 4CC?L <G <F
<@CBEG4AG G;4G G;8 BHEG 9<EFG 78G8E@<A8 J;<6; E8:<@8F <G 58?<8I8F
F;BH?7 6BAG<AH8 GB 8K<FG
+B G;<F 8A7 G;8 BHEG F;BH?7 6BAF<78E
J;<6;7898E8A68E8:<@8F6BAG<AH8GB584CCEBCE<4G8
+;8BHEG;4F
<78AG<9<87 78?8:4G<BA B9 4HG;BE<GL 4:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8 899<6<8A6L
4:8A6L 466BHAG45<?<GL 4A7 ?8:4? FG45<?<GL 4F =HFG<9<64G<BAF 9BE G;8
7<998E8AG 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F <G ;4F 47BCG87 BI8E G;8 L84EF
+;8F8
=HFG<9<64G<BAF E8@4<A I4?<7 <A 68EG4<A 6<E6H@FG4A68F 9BE 4:8A6L
46G<BA
BE <AFG4A68 4:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8 7B8F ABG 8K<FG <A G;8
47=H7<64G<BA B9 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87 <FFH8F 5HG <G 7B8F 8K<FG
J;8A G;8 4:8A6L <F <AG8ECE8G<A: <GF BJAE8:H?4G<BAF
*<@<?4E?L G;8
A887 9BE 6BAF<FG8A6L @4L 58 FGEBA:8E J;8A 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L
CEBG86G87 4E84F 4E8 4G <FFH8 4A7 @4L 58 J84>8E J;8A 4A 8AG<E8
<A7HFGEL <F 49986G87
+;8 CE8F8A68 B9 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87
rights elevates the courts’ expertiF8 E8?4G<I8 GB G;8 4:8A6L 4A7
6BHAGF 4:4<AFG G;8 6BAG<AH87 4CC?<64G<BA B9 4AG<7898E8A68 E8:<@8F
HA78E G;8 EH?8 B9 ?8A<GL 4A7 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? 4IB<74A68
.<G; G;8
8K68CG<BA B9 &<(:8 7898E8A68 G;8F8 =HFG<9<64G<BAF FHCCBEG G;8
6BAG<AH874CC?<64G<BAB94??B9G;87898E8A68E8:<@8F7<F6HFF87G;HF
94E
BAI8EF8?LG;84:8A6L8KC8EG<F8<FC8E;4CF:E84G8FGJ;8A<G<F
***,$ +8?86B@@F
BEC
I
++B
,
*
;B?7<A:G;4G
4A 8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8 8K68CG<BA 4CC?<87 GB G;8 4:8A6L <AG8ECE8G4G<BA B9 G;8 G8E@
5864HF8<G;8?7G;4GBA:E8FF?<>8?LJBH?7ABG78?8:4G8GBG;8G;87<F6E8G<BAGB
4?G8E94EE846;<A:E4G8E8:H?4G<BAFG;4G49986G874A8AG<E8<A7HFGELG;EBH:;G;8HF8B9
G;4GG8E@
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
<AG8ECE8G<A: 4 E8:H?4G<BA G;4G <G <GF8?9 <@C?8@8AG87 4A7 F;BH?7
G;8E89BE8 58 499BE787 4<1*8 7898E8A68 <A FH6; 6<E6H@FG4A68F
+;8
A887F B9 A4G<BA4? F86HE<GL B9G8A BI8E?4C J<G; G;8 8K<:8A6<8F B9
9BE8<:A CB?<6L 4A7 78@4A7 899<6<8A6L 4A7 E8FCBAF<I8A8FF G;4G
FHCCBEGF G;8 7898E8AG<4? E8:<@8 HA78E :79.88#7.,-9
6B@5<A4G<BAB9G;84:8A6L8KC8EG<F8A8879BE899<6<8A6L4A74:8A6L
466BHAG45<?<GL =HFG<9L G;8 4CC?<64G<BA B9 -*;743 4A7 0.)247*
7898E8A68E8:<@8F
+;8 6BAG<AH87 4CC?<64G<BA B9 *9-87&*1 4A7 &<(:8 7898E8A68
;BJ8I8E J4EE4AG :E84G8E 8K4@<A4G<BA 5864HF8 B9 G;8<E FGE<><A:
F<@<?4E<GLGB-*;743
&A8ABG45?8946GBE<AG;<F6BAF<78E4G<BA<FG;8
946GG;4GCH5?<6466BHAG45<?<GLB9G;84:8A6L;4F588A<78AG<9<875L
G;8 BHEG 4F 4 =HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE 7898E8A68
.;<?8 -*;743 J4F
4EG<6H?4G87 <A G;8 6BAG8KG B9 4A 8K86HG<I8 4:8A6L *9- 87&*1 <F 4
7898E8A68FG4A74E7G;4G;4F588A4CC?<878K6?HF<I8?LGBG;8%#)
4A<A78C8A78AG4:8A6L
L8KC4A7<A:*9-87&*14A74CC?L<A:<GGB
4??<A78C8A78AG4:8A6<8FG;8BHEG6BH?7<A6BECBE4G8<GFI4?H4G<BA
B9 78@B6E4G<6 466BHAG45<?<GL <AGB G;8 7898E8A68 E8:<@8
.;<?8 G;8
*9- 87&*1 FG4A74E7 <F F<@<?4E GB -*;743 G;8 BHEG 6BH?7 9HEG;8E
78I8?BC<GF6BA68CG<BAB9“6BAF<FG8A6L”4A7“E4G<BA4?<GL”J<G;<AG;8
*9- 87&*1 E8:<@8 <A BE78E GB 8KC4A7 BE 6BAGE46G G;8 ?8I8? B9
7898E8A68 466BE7<A:?L 4A7 7<FG<A:H<F; <G 9HEG;8E 9EB@ -*;743
+;8E8 <F ;BJ8I8E AB FH6; =HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE 6BAG<AH<A: GB 4CC?L 4
F8C4E4G8 7898E8A68 E8:<@8 GB <AG8ECE8G4G<BAF B9 G4K FG4GHG8F J;<6;
4E8CE87B@<A4G8?L<AG8ECE8G875LG;8 )*4A7+E84FHEL8C4EG@8AG
both executive agencies. Nor do these agencies’ expertise support
;8IEBA ,
*
A6
I
%4GHE4? )8F
89
BHA6<? A6
,
*
(“While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief K86HG<I8 <F
4A7 <G <F 8AG<E8?L 4CCEBCE<4G8 9BE G;<F CB?<G<64? 5E4A6; B9 G;8 BI8EA@8AG GB @4>8
such policy choices.”).
Beth Isr. Hosp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 437 U.S. 483, 501 (1978) (“The rule
J;<6;G;8B4E747BCGF<F=H7<6<4??LE8I<8J45?89BE6BAF<FG8A6LJ<G;G;86G4A79BE
rationality.”).
3
!
G;86BAG<AH4G<BAB94F8C4E4G87898E8A68E8:<@8
+BG;86BAGE4EL
:<I8A G;8 6E84G<BA B9 FC86<4?<M87 G4K 6BHEGF 4:8A6L 8KC8EG<F8 @4L
46GH4??L FH::8FG G;4G G;8F8 4:8A6<8F F;BH?7 58 499BE787 1*88
7898E8A68J;8A<AG8ECE8G<A:G4KFG4GHG8F
*0*+$+ 1 %+ )%+)%) $*
9 G;8 BHEG E86B:A<M8F G;8 A887 9BE @H?G<C?8 7898E8A68
FG4A74E7F BHGF<78 B9 *&)4A7 -*;743<G J<?? A887 GB4EG<6H?4G8 4
6?84E FLFG8@ 9BE 4CC?L<A: G;8 7<998E8AG FG4A74E7F
HEE8AG?L
-*;743FG8CM8EB<F4CC?<87GB78G8E@<A8J;8G;8E-*;743BE*&)
7898E8A68 4CC?<8F 5HG G;<F 4A4?LF<F F;BH?7 58 8KC4A787 GB
<A6BECBE4G8 G;8 AH4A68 B9 G;8 6HEE8AG 7898E8A68 E8:<@8F
+;8
BHEGF;BH?78KC4A7-*;743FG8CM8EBFBG;4GG;8E8I<8J<A:6BHEG
6BAF<78EF 4I4E<8GLB9946GBEFGB78G8E@<A8J;<6;B9G;8E8@4<A<A:
7898E8A68 E8:<@8F F;BH?7 4CC?L
+;8 7<998E8AG E8:<@8F E89?86G
7<998E8AG <AG8E8FGF G;4G 4:8A6L 786<F<BAF 9E8DH8AG?L 49986G J;8G;8E
G;8L 4E8 G;8 <AG8E8FGF B9 G;8 <A7<I<7H4? E8:H?4G87 6BECBE4G<BA BE
:BI8EA@8AG<GF8?9
.;<?8*&)CEBI<78F6?84E:H<74A68GB6BHEGF9BE
78G8E@<A<A: J;8G;8E GB 4CC?L 0.)247*BE -*;743 G;8E8 ;4F 588A
?<GG?8 7<F6HFF<BA B9 ;BJ G;8 BG;8E FG4A74E7F <AG8E46G J<G; BA8
4ABG;8E
+;8 6BAG<AH87 8K<FG8A68 B9 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F G;4G
CE874G8 -*;743 FH::8FGF G;4G 6BHEGF 7B ABG 58?<8I8 G;8 F4@8
=HFG<9<64G<BA 9BE =H7<6<4? 7898E8A68 4E8 CE8F8AG <A 4?? B9 G;8 64F8F
6BAF<78E87
A BE78E GB CEBC8E?L 477E8FF 4AL 6B@C8G<A: <AG8E8FGF
G;8 BHEG F;BH?7 4CC?L 4 54?4A6<A: G8FG GB 78G8E@<A8 J;<6;
7898E8A68 E8:<@8 58FG 477E8FF8F G;8 <AG8E8FGF 4G FG4>8
*H6; 4 G8FG
-*;743 ,
*
4G FH::8FG<A: G;4G BA:E8FF <AG8AG<BA4??L ?89G FG4GHGBEL
CEBI<F<BAF I4:H8 FB G;4G 47@<A<FGE4GBEF J<G; 8KC8EG<F8 4A7 <A7<64G<A: G;4G <A G;8
Court’s view, judges are not experts in G;8I4E<BHF9<8?7FB9?4J477E8FF875L4:8A6L
46G<BA
4FF)
*HAFG8<A-*;7439*5%*74-
#
)-
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
JBH?74??BJ9BEG;89?8K<5<?<GLA868FF4ELGB477E8FFG;8J<78E4A:8
B9I4E<45<?<GL<A4:8A6L46G<BAF
ABE78EGB89986G<I8?L466B@C?<F;G;<FG;8BHEGF;BH?78KC4A7
<GF4A4?LF<F7HE<A:J;4G46478@<6F;4I8E898EE87GB4F-*;743FG8C
M8EB J;8E8<A G;8 6BHEG 78G8E@<A8F J;8G;8E BE ABG -*;743
7898E8A68JBH?7584CCEBCE<4G8<AG;89<EFG<AFG4A68
)4G;8EG;4A
6BAG<AH8G;86HEE8AG54F<64A4?LF<FJ;8E8<A6BHEGF6;BBF858GJ88A
GJB 6B@C8G<A: 4?G8EA4G<I8F HA78E -*;743 FG8C M8EB G;8 BHEG
JBH?7<AFG8474CC?L49<I8CEBA:54?4A6<A:G8FGGB78G8E@<A8J;<6;
9BE@B97898E8A68<F@BFG4CCEBCE<4G8
+;<F54?4A6<A:G8FGJBH?758
4 I4E<4G<BA B9 G;8 &9-*<8;1)7.),*54?4A6<A: G8FG 9BECEB687HE4?
H8'EB68FFCEBG86G<BAF
+;8&9-*<854?4A6<A:G8FGE8DH<E8FG;4G
6BHEGF6BAF<78EG;8CE<I4G8<AG8E8FG49986G87E<F>B98EEBA8BHF
deprivation, and (3) the government’s interest at stake. A G;8
6BAG8KGB947@<A<FGE4G<I846G<BAG;8F8CEBA:F4E8G4<?BE87GBE89?86G
G;8I4E<878@C;4F8FB9G;87898E8A68E8:<@8F4A7JBH?7<A6?H78
+;8 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87 <AG8E8FG <9 4AL G;4G <F
<@C?<64G87<AG;8<FFH8589BE8G;86BHEG
+;8CE<I4G8<AG8E8FGF49986G87
:8A6L8KC8EG<F8<AG;8@4GG8E
BA:E8FF<BA4?78?8:4G<BAB94HG;BE<GL
:8A6L8K8E6<F8B9<GF78?8:4G874HG;BE<GL
$H6; ?<>8 &9-*<8 G;8 9B6HF B9 G;<F 4A4?LF<F <F BA G;8
6BAFGE4<AGF <@CBF87 BA :BI8EA@8AG4? 786<F<BAF J;<6; B9G8A
78CE<I8<A7<I<7H4?FB9?<58EGLBECEBC8EGL<AG8E8FGF
+;87<998E8A68
**,*3*7&11> Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 224 (2005) (“[W]e generally have
786?<A87GB8FG45?<F;E<:<7EH?8F4A7<AFG847;4I88@5E468749E4@8JBE>GB8I4?H4G8
the sufficiency of particular procedures.”).
*HAFG8<A8:57&ABG84G
,
*
)
)4G
3
!
?<8F <A G;8 946G G;4G J;<?8 &9-*<8 477E8FF87 G;8 CEB687HE4? 7H8
CEB68FF CEBG86G<BAF <AIB?I87 <A G;8 6BAG8KG B9 47@<A<FGE4G<I8
;84E<A:FG;8CEBCBF8754?4A6<A:G8FG<F6BA68EA87J<G;G;8?8I8?B9
judicial scrutiny attached to an agency’s actions. Despite this, many
B9 G;8 <AG8E8FGF <AIB?I87 <A G;8 4A4?LF<F 4E8 DH<G8 F<@<?4E
A
&9-*<8G;89<EFG946GBE6BAF<78E87<FG;8“CE<I4G8<AG8E8FGG;4GJ<??
58 49986G87 5L G;8 B99<6<4? 46G<BA
” A G;8 6BAG8KG B9 4A 4:8A6L
46G<BA G;8 “CE<I4G8” <AG8E8FG 64A 58 DH<G8 I4E<87 4A7 DH<G8 94E
E846;<A:
+BG;<F8A7G;<F6BAF<78E4G<BA64A4CC84E<AGJB7<998E8AG
@4AA8EF 4F 8<G;8E 4 6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87 <AG8E8FG B9 G;8
<A7<I<7H4? BE 4F 4 F<:A<9<64AG 786<F<BA G;4G <@C46GF F8I8E4?
<A7<I<7H4?F
F 7<F6HFF87 <A *86G<BA G;8 BHEG ;4F 588A
FB@8J;4GJ4ELGB499BE74AL7898E8A68GB4:8A6L46G<BAFG;4G;4I8
F<:A<9<64AG <@C?<64G<BAF 9BE6BAFG<GHG<BA4??L CEBG86G87 <AG8E8FGF
BE
G;<F E84FBA <9 4 CEBG86G87 <AG8E8FG <F F<:A<9<64AG?L <@C?<64G87 G;8
BHEG4A7ABGG;84:8A6L;4FG;8E8?4G<I88KC8EG<F84A7G;84:8A6L
F;BH?7 58 499BE787 ?<GG?8 GB AB 7898E8A68
BAI8EF8?L <9 G;8 <FFH8F
7<F6HFF87<AG;864F8GBH6;HCBA<FFH8FB99BE8<:ACB?<6L<G<F?<>8?L
GB78@4A74:E84G8E?8I8?B97898E8A689EB@G;8BHEG4F<F9BHA7<A
:79.88#7.,-9 7898E8A68
.;<?8 4 6BAFG<GHG<BA4? E<:;G @4L ABG
A868FF4E<?L587<E86G?L<@C?<64G87<AG;864F8G;<F<FABGGBF4LG;4G
G;8CE<I4G8<AG8E8FGFB9G;8<A7<I<7H4?4E8HA49986G87
FG;8BHEG
;4F 7<F6HFF87 <A G;8 “8KGE4BE7<A4EL 64F8” 8K68CG<BA 4:8A6L
786<F<BAF G;4G J<?? ;4I8 ?4FG<A: 89986GF BA 8AG<E8 <A7HFGE<8F ?<>8?L
E8DH<E84@BE8AH4A6874A764E89H?4A4?LF<F5LG;86BHEG
+;<FB9G8A
FHCCBEGFG;8786<F<BAGBE8I<8JG;8<FFH8F)*34;4
)4G
,A<G87*G4G8FI
HEG<FF.E<:;GKC
BEC
,
*
4??BJ<A:9BE4
“degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be
admissible were domestic affairs alone involved”).
**$ +8?86B@@F
BEC
I
++B
,
*
;B?7<A:G;4GG;8
FCC’s actions should not be 499BE787 4AL 7898E8A68 5864HF8 <GF 46G<BAF JBH?7
FH5FG4AG<4??L 4?G8E G;8 E4G8E8:H?4G87 @4E>8G BB7 4A7 EH: 7@<A
I
EBJA .<??<4@FBA +B5466B BEC
,
*
;B?7<A: G;4G 7<7 ABG
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
+;8<AG8E8FGFB9G;8ABA:BI8EA@8AG4?46GBEF;BJ8I8E@HFG58
weighed against the government’s inteE8FG <A G;8 ?<G<:4G<BA
<A6?H7<A: “G;8 9HA6G<BA<AIB?I874A7G;8 9<F64?4A747@<A<FGE4G<I8
5HE78AF G;4G G;8 477<G<BA4? BE FH5FG<GHG8 CEB687HE4? E8DH<E8@8AG
JBH?7 8AG4<?
” In an analysis of an agency’s action, the
“government’s interest” <F ?4E:8?L E89?86G87 <A G;8 <AG8E8FGF B9 G;8
agency as well as in the agency’s expertise in the subject of the
?<G<:4G<BA
A 4:8A6L G4F>87 J<G; <@C?8@8AG<A: 4 FG4GHG8 ;4F 4
I8FG87 <AG8E8FG <A <GF 6BEE86G <@C?8@8AG4G<BA G;<F <AG8E8FG <F
<A6E84F87 J;8A G;8 4:8A6L ;4F 8A:4:87 <A G;8 46G B9 4CC?L<A: <GF
own regulation, which results from the agency’s prior interpretation
B9G;8FG4GHG8
+;<F<AG8E8FG;BJ8I8E<F7<@<A<F;87<A64F8FJ;8E8
G;8 4:8A6L <F ABG 4F 8KC8EG
BE <AFG4A68 <A 7&3(443?&1*? G;8
E84FBA45?8466B@@B74G<BAFE8DH<E8@8AGHA78EG;8@8E<64AFJ<G;
<F45<?<G<8F 6G J8E8 ABG 4 68AGE4? <FFH8 G;4G G;8 784?G J<G;
E8:H?4E?L<AG;86BHEF8B9<GF78G8AG<BAB9<@@<:E4AGF4A7G;8E89BE8
;47 ?<GG?8 8KC8EG<F8 <A 6BAF<78E<A:
BE G;<F E84FBA :<I8A G;4G
G;8F8E8DH<E8@8AGF9E8DH8AG?L4CC84E874F4A6<??4EL<FFH8F<AG;8<E
BC8E4G<BAF ;47 E8?4G<I8?L ?<GG?8 <AG8E8FG <A G;8 CEBC8E
<@C?8@8AG4G<BAB9G;8FG4GHG84A7G;8E89BE8F;BH?7ABG58499BE787
4:E84G784?B97898E8A68
;4I8 G;8 4HG;BE<GL GB E8:H?4G8 GB5466B <A7HFGEL 5864HF8 B9 G;8 ?BA: ;<FGBEL B9
ABAE8:H?4G<BA 4A7 G;8 =4EE<A: 6;4A:8 GB G;8 <A7HFGEL G;4G JBH?7 E8FH?G 9EB@ E8:H?4G<BA"<A:I
HEJ8??*
G
;B?7<A:G;4GAB7898E8A68<F
afforded to agency actions that have significant “ecoAB@<6 4A7 CB?<G<64?
significance”).
&9-*<8,
*
4G
**E4A6BBAM4?8M I
B?78E %B
.# 4G A
4?
CE
ABG<A: G;4G 8I8A ?4JL8EF E8:H?4E?L 4FF<:A87 GB E8CE8F8AG
@8AG4??L <@C4<E87 6?<8AGF <A <@@<:E4G<BA CEB6887<A:F @4L ?46> G;8 CEB98FF<BA4?
expertise and accountability to adequately represent their client’s needs).
** ,
*
+ 1%* ' %
$$ )+ &% *)-*
'&# 0 $%,# ;GGCFJJJ
HF6<F
:BICB?<6L@4AH4?+$#'B?<6L$4AH4?-B?H@8'4EG;4C
ter11.html (outlining the agency’s policy for complying with the Rehabilitation Act;
AB FH6; @4AH4? 8K<FGF 9BE ,
*
@@<:E4G<BA 4A7 HFGB@F A9BE68@8AG J;<6; <F 4
F8C4E4G8FH57<I<F<BAB98C4EG@8AGB9B@8?4A7*86HE<GL
3
!
Similarly, the agency’s interest in the subjecGB9G;8?<G<:4G<BA<F
49986G87 5L G;8 A4GHE8 B9 G;8 4:8A6L 4F 8<G;8E 4A <A78C8A78AG BE
8K86HG<I8 4:8A6L
+;8 68AGE4? 7<998E8A68 58GJ88A G;8F8 GJB
7<998E8AG64G8:BE<8FB94:8A6<8F<FG;8<EE8FCBAF<I8A8FFGBG;878F<E8F
B9 G;8 8K86HG<I8 5E4A6; J;<6; FG4A7F 4F 4 CEBKL 9BE 78@B6E4G<6
466BHAG45<?<GL
+;8 4FFH@CG<BA <A G;8 786<F<BA 58GJ88A 8K86HG<I8
4A7 <A78C8A78AG 4:8A6<8F <F G;4G G;8 E8?4G<BAF;<C B9 G;8 4:8A6L GB
G;8 8K86HG<I8 5E4A6; BE ?46> G;8E8B9 49986GF G;8 B5=86G<I8F 4A7
<AG8E8FGFB9G;84:8A6L
FFH@ing that the agency’s interest plays
FB@8 EB?8 <A <GF H?G<@4G8 46G<BAF G;8 7<998E8AG <AG8E8FGF G;4G :H<78
<A78C8A78AG 4:8A6<8F 4A7 8K86HG<I8 4:8A6<8F JBH?7 FHCCBEG GJB
7<998E8AG GLC8F B9 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7F 9BE G;8F8 GJB GLC8F B9
4:8A6<8F
+;89<A4?CEBA:<AG;<F4A4?LF<F<FG;86HEE8AG-*;743FG8CM8EB
4A4?LF<F
<I8AG;4GG;8GLC8FB94:8A6L46G<BAF:BI8EA875L *&)
4A7-*;743E89?86G7<998E8AG?8I8?FB9FGEH6GHE4?786<F<BA@4><A:BA
G;8C4EGB9G;84:8A6LG;8F87<998E8AGGLC8FB946G<BAF49986GG;8E<F>
B9 8EEBE 4A7 8EEBA8BHF 78CE<I4G<BA
-*;743 4CC?<8F J;8A 4 EH?8
64EE<8FG;89BE68B9?4J<
8
G;84:8A6L46G87BAG;8BA:E8FF<BA4??L
78?8:4G877<F6E8G<BA4EL4HG;BE<GL
ABE78E9BE4EH?8GB64EELG;8
9BE68B9?4J<G@HFG5878I8?BC87466BE7<A:GB68EG4<ACEB687HE8F
J;<6;E8DH<E8F:E84G8E6BAF<78E4G<BABAG;8C4EGB9G;84:8A6LG;4A
ABA5<A7<A: EH?8F
BE G;<F E84FBA G;8 E<F> B9 8EEBE J;<6; <F
49986G87 5L G;8 4@BHAG B9 9BE8G;BH:;G CHG <AGB 4 786<F<BA <F ?8FF
J;8A 4A 4:8A6L 46G<BA 64EE<8F G;8 9BE68 B9 ?4J G;4A J;8A <G 7B8F
ABG4A7G;HFFHCCBEGFG;8:E4AG<A:B94FGEBA:8E9BE@B97898E8A68
GBG;84:8A6L
'8G8E '
*J<E8 3(47547&9.43 4+ 3)*5*3)*39 ,*3(.*8 .394 9-* =*(:9.;* 7&3(- 0# #
!
7<F6HFF<A: G;8 ;<FGBEL B9 4:8A6L <A78C8A78A68 4F 4
@86;4A<F@9BECB?<G<64?<@C4EG<4?<GL
,A<G87*G4G8FI
$847BEC
,
*
!<??
4@<?L)2.3.897&9.;*&< -74:,-9-**384+22.,7&9.43&<$ %
#
)-
*<$470!3.;*78.9>4:73&14+&<.'*79> 2-B?
The Court’s approach to agency deference has had an inverse
E8?4G<BAF;<C J<G; G;8 78I8?BC@8AG B9 G;8 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8 4F
4:8A6<8F 6BAG<AH87 GB :EBJ <A F<M8 4A7 6B@C?8K<GL G;8 BHEG ;4F
attempted to simplify the rubrics by which it analyzes agencies’
46G<BAF <AGB 4 F<A:?8 FG4A74E7
+;8 FHCCBF87 -*;743 E8IB?HG<BA
7<F6HFF87 <A 46478@<6 ?<G8E4GHE8 ;4F L8G GB 9H??L 466E8G8 G;8 CE<BE
6BAFG8??4G<BAB9=HE<FCEH78A685HG<G;4FCHF;874EBHA7G;8F8BG;8E
5B7<8FB9CE86878AG
:8A6<8F4A76BHEGF<AGHEA4E8?89G47E<9G<A
8@CGLFC468J<G;?<GG?8GB:H<78G;8@58GJ88A7898E8A68FG4A74E7F
G;4G 6BAG<AH8 GB 8K<FG <A G;8 CE86878AG B9 G;8 *HCE8@8 BHEG
+;8
BHEG F;BH?7 46>ABJ?87:8 G;8 6HEE8AG E84?<GL G;4G =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68<F3497B@<A4G875L4ALF<A:?87898E8A68FG4A74E7ABE<F
4AL F<A:?8 7898E8A68 FG4A74E7 FH99<6<8AG GB 477E8FF G;8 J<78
E4A:<A: A887F B9 G;8 @B78EA 47@<A<FGE4G<I8 FG4G8
A 4 6B@C?8K
:?B54?<M87 FB6<8GL 4:8A6<8F @HFG 58 4??BJ87 GB 8K8E6<F8 G;8<E
8KC8EG<F8 J<G;BHG <ABE7<A4G8 =H7<6<4? <AG8E98E8A68 5HG G;8 =H7<6<4?
7898E8A68E8:<@8F@HFG586BAF<FG8AG?L4A7FLFG8@4G<64??L4CC?<87
**+;B@4F .
$8EE<?? :).(.&1*+*7*3(*94=*(:9.;*7*(*)*39 0# #
!
980 (1992) (“On the one hand, -*;7436?84E?L;4FE8FH?G87<A4F<:A<9<64AGF;<9G<AG;8
7898E8A68 7B6GE<A8
&A G;8 BG;8E ;4A7 -*;743 ;4F ABG CEB7H687 4ALG;<A: ?<>8 4
complete revolution in the Court’s jurisprudence. On the whole, the overall picture
FH::8FGF G;4G G;8 =H7<6<4? HA78EFG4A7<A: G;4G <A9BE@F G;8 7898E8A68 DH8FG<BA <F
probably more confused today than it has ever been.”).