CPR Scholars Testify on Judicial Deference to Agency Discretion

by Matthew Freeman

March 15, 2016

Later today, not one but two CPR Member Scholars will testify today before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

Emily Hammond and Richard J. Pierce both offer some perspective on the limits and scope of judicial deference to federal regulatory agencies. Pierce sketches out the long history of jurisprudence on the subject, noting that,

Until late in the Nineteenth century, courts could not and did not review the vast majority of agency actions. The Supreme Court held that courts lacked the power to review exercises of executive branch discretion. A court could review an action taken by the executive branch (or a refusal to act) only in the rare case in which a statute compelled an agency to act in a particular manner. In that situation, the court was simply requiring the agency to take a non-discretionary ministerial action.  

He then traces the evolution of the Supreme Court’s view, arriving at the landmark Chevron vs. NRDC decision, in which the court framed what is to regulatory scholars a now very familiar test. As Hammond describes it,

The test provides that when a court reviews an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers, the court must ask first whether Congress has spoken clearly; if so, the clear language controls. If not, the court must uphold the agency’s permissible—that is, reasonable—construction of the statute. The deferential aspect of Chevron in step two has often been criticized, but it is not particularly remarkable. Even prior to the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts afforded at least some deference to agencies’ legal interpretations in many circumstance.

The majority on the subcommittee, and for that matter, on the full Judiciary committee, takes the general view that regulation and regulators are bad, and that reining in their power is almost always a good thing, certainly while Democrats control the White House, at least. So they’ll find little comfort in the conclusion that Pierce and Hammond each arrive at separately. Pierce says:

I do not see any opportunity for Congress to make beneficial changes in this area of law by statute at present. The courts have ample discretion to make any needed changes or clarifications in this area of law without any changes in the statutes that now govern this area of law. Courts are in the best position institutionally to make the kinds of changes in legal doctrines that would have a realistic chance of improving the legal framework within which agencies make rules and the quality and timeliness of the resulting rules.  

Hammond concurs:

The deference regimes are best understood as part of a larger constitutional framework, within which courts attempt to optimize their reviewing role, the legislature’s desires as expressed in the statutory mandate, and the executive branch’s policymaking discretion. Although tensions can arise between these norms in a given case, the deference regimes overall strike a reasonable balance. Furthermore, the various deference regimes work together to permit courts to tailor their review to the particulars of the agency actions before them. And those deference regimes also work in tandem with the equitable powers of the courts to further ensure a careful consideration of all the interests at stake. Although one can find reasons to criticize how courts apply these standards, any attempt to legislate a change would be even more problematic. No legislative standard can account for all of the variety in administrative law, and a piecemeal approach would severely interfere with the balance between and among the deference doctrines and remedies.  

The hearing will be live-streamed here, beginning at 1:30 p.m. In the meantime, here’s Hammond’s testimony, and here’s Pierce’s testimony. If you're in Washington, and looking to catch the hearing live, it's in 2141 Rayburn.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Matthew Freeman

Media relations consultant Matthew Freeman helps coordinate CPR's media outreach efforts and manage its online communications. His media relations experience in Washington spans more than 30 years, and his client list includes a range of organizations active on the environment, education, civil rights and liberties, health care, progressive organizing in the interfaith community, and more.

Shapiro Takes on Pruitt's Pseudo-Transparency Rule

Freeman | May 29, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

CPR's 2018 Op-Eds, Part One

Freeman | Apr 11, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

What Creates the Cost, Mr. President?

Freeman | Jan 31, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

A Final 2017 Dose of Op-Eds

Freeman | Dec 28, 2017 | Regulatory Policy

Steinzor: Trump's reform won't stop mass incarceration

Freeman | Dec 21, 2017 | Good Government

The Center for Progressive Reform

2021 L St NW, #101-330
Washington, DC. 20036

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015