Auer et al. v. Robbins et al.
Reference: 519 U.S. 452
Term: 1996
Important Dates
Argued: December 10, 1996 Decided: February 19, 1997
Outcome
Eighth Circuit Court of Appealsaffirmed
Majority
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist •John Paul Stevens •Sandra Day O'Connor •Antonin Scalia •Anthony Kennedy •David Souter •Clarence Thomas •Ruth Bader Ginsburg •Stephen Breyer

See also:Kisor v. Wilkie

Auer et al. v. Robbins et al. is a 1997U.S. Supreme Court case that created a principle known asAuer deference. UnderAuer deference federal courtsdefer to agency interpretations of ambiguities in their own regulations.^[1] In theAuer case, a group of police sergeants and a police lieutenant sued members of theSt. Louis Board of Police Commissioners alleging that the board failed to pay the policemen proper overtime wages under theFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The board argued that the policemen were not entitled to overtime pay because the policemen fell under an exemption of the law pertaining to anyone employed in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity.^[2]

Why it matters: This case established the principle known asAuer deference, which requires federal courts to give deference to how executive agencies interpret ambiguities in their own regulations. Auer deference requires "that an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation be given controlling weight unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation or statute ... Agency interpretations need not be well-established or long-standing to be entitled to deference. They must, however, 'reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.'"^[3]

Case background

Administrative State
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Judicial deference •Nondelegation •Executive control •Procedural rights •Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia

Several publicly paid police sergeants and a police lieutenant sued members of theSt. Louis, Missouri, Board of Police Commissioners alleging that the board failed to pay the policemen overtime pay due to them under Section §7(a)(1) of theFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), codified as29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). The board argued that the policemen were not entitled to overtime pay because the policemen fell under an exemption provided by§213(a)(1). That exemption provided that the provisions of §207(a)(1) do not apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity."^[2]

TheU.S. Secretary of Labor provided further regulations for the FLSA, one of which made earning a specific minimum salary a requirement for exempt status under §213(a)(1). The regulations provided that "[a]n employee will be considered to be paid 'on a salary basis' ... if under his employment agreement he regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of his compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed."^[1]

The policemen argued that the salary basis test provided by the secretary's regulations was not met because the policemen's compensation was subject to reduction under terms of the St. Louis police manual based on the "quality or quantity" of work performed. The policemen also argued that their duties did not qualify them for overtime pay exemption because the duties were not of a "bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity."^[1]

Afederal district court held that the policemen were, in fact, paid on a salary basis, satisfying the salary basis provision provided by the secretary's regulation. The court also held that, for most of the policemen that filed suit, their duties also brought them within the exemption for overtime pay. TheEighth Circuit Court of Appealsaffirmed on the salary basis test provision andreversed on the duties test provision, finding that all the policemen involved in the lawsuit had duties that brought the officers within the overtime pay exemption.^[1]

Oral argument

Oral argument was held on December 10, 1996.^[1]

Decision

The judgment of theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals wasaffirmed.^[1]

Opinion

JusticeAntonin Scalia delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. The court held that the secretary of labor's interpretation of the salary basis test met the court's standard for deference because the test was "a creature of the Secretary's own regulations," which made his interpretation "controlling unless 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation'." Justice Scalia argued that the approach offered by the Labor Department was instructive:^[1]

The court further rejected arguments that the Labor Department's regulation was overly broad and therefore not narrowly tailored as required. The court reasoned that the department was free to write regulations as broadly as it deemed fit, subject only to statutory limits.^[1]

As a result of the reasoning presented in the opinion, theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals wasaffirmed.

Impact

Auer as an extension of judicial deference

This case is largely seen as an extension of the court's 1984 opinion inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that case, a principle known asChevron deference was created, requiring federal courts to give deference to executive agencies in how their regulations interpret a statute. Here, the court expanded this idea via a principle known asAuer deference, which requires federal courts to give deference to how executive agencies interpret ambiguities in their own regulations. Auer deference requires "that an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation be given controlling weight unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation or statute ... Agency interpretations need not be well-established or long-standing to be entitled to deference. They must, however, 'reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.'"^[3]

Uncertain future ofAuer deference

Some scholars have called the status ofAuer into question.The Washington Post reported that "before his death, however,Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had second thoughts, concluding thatjudicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations was unwarranted, and he was not alone."Notice & Comment, a blog from theYale Journal on Regulation and theAmerican Bar Association Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, held a September 2016 symposium on the future ofAuer and an earlier regulatory case,Bowles v. Seminole Rock.^[5][6]

Kisor v. Wilkie

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the judicial deference precedents established inAuer andSeminole Rock in a case calledKisor v. Wilkie. The case also placed clear limitations on which regulatory interpretations qualify for deference.^[7]

See also

• Auer deference
• Deference (administrative state)
• Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
• Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court

External links

• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

v • e The Administrative State Main The Administrative State Project main page •Administrative State Project Index •Glossary of administrative state terms •Quotes about the administrative state •Administrative state •Rulemaking •Deference •Adjudication •Nondelegation doctrine •Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker Pillars Agency control •Executive control •Judicial control •Legislative control •Public control Reporting Changes to the Federal Register •Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules •Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act •Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016 Laws Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Cases Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States Terms Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large Bibliography "Administrative Law - The 20th Century Bequeaths an 'Illegitimate Exotic' in Full and Terrifying Flower" by Stephen P. Dresch (2000) "Confronting the Administrative Threat" by Philip Hamburger and Tony Mills (2017) "Constitutionalism after the New Deal" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987) Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787) "From Administrative State to Constitutional Government" by Joseph Postell (2012) "Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule (2002) "Rulemaking as Legislating" by Kathryn Watts (2015) "The Checks & Balances of the Regulatory State" by Paul R. Verkuil (2016) "The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano (2017) "The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis" by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007) "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" by Gary Lawson (1994) "The Study of Administration" by Woodrow Wilson (1887) "The Threat to Liberty" by Steven F. Hayward (2017) "Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law" by Richard A. Epstein (2008) Agencies Administrative Conference of the United States •United States Civil Service Commission •U.S. Government Accountability Office •U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs •U.S. Office of Management and Budget