The US Supreme Court declines to overrule principle of deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, but clarifies limitations on its scope (Kisor / Wilkie)

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

Summary Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released a highly anticipated decision addressing the question of whether to overrule Auer v. Robbins, which generally requires courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations. [1] In a splintered 5-4 decision, the Court declined to abolish Auer deference (sometimes referred to as Seminole Rock deference) [2] as a matter of stare decisis, but reiterated and expanded important limitations on the doctrine’s application. Significantly, under Kisor, courts should apply Auer deference only if they determine that (i) a regulation is genuinely ambiguous after exhausting all traditional tools of interpretation, (ii) the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, and (iii) the “character and context of the agency

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteurs

  • Sullivan & Cromwell (New York)
  • Sullivan & Cromwell (New York)
  • Sullivan & Cromwell (New York)

Citation

David Braff, Mitchell Eitel, Rodgin Cohen, The US Supreme Court declines to overrule principle of deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, but clarifies limitations on its scope (Kisor / Wilkie), 26 juin 2019, e-Competitions June 2019, Art. N° 96929

Visites 11

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues