Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Judicial control
•Court cases •Legislation •Major arguments •Reform proposals •Scholarly work •Timeline
More pillars
•Agency control •Executive control •Legislative control • Public control
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to accessBallotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

See also:Taxonomy of arguments about judicial deference andJudicial deference: a timeline

What is judicial deference?
Judicial deference is anadministrative law principle under whichcourts yield to an executive agency’s interpretation of a statute, regulation, or policy when certain conditions are met. There are different types of judicial deference doctrines at both the federal and state levels. When courts do not apply a deference doctrine, they read the meaning of a statute, regulation, or policyde novo, deciding the meaning without deferring to any other authority.

Why does it matter?
Judicial deference is central to many debates about theadministrative state and the balance of power between executive branch agencies and the courts. Deference doctrines have seen substantial changes at both the federal and state levels in recent years. In 2025, as of August 1,five states have passed bills limiting state-level judicial deference.

What are key arguments?
Supporters of judicial deference argue it allows agencies to establish regulations based on their subject matter expertise, and allows courts to utilize agency expertise in cases involving complex or technical subject matter. They also say legislatures grant agencies the power to resolve statutory ambiguity, and that judicial deference upholdsseparation of powers principles.

Opponents of judicial deference argue it violates theseparation of powers by effectively giving judicial powers (like interpreting laws and regulations) to agency officials. Opponents also argue that deference is inconsistent with theAdministrative Procedure Act, which requires courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" in cases involving agencies.^[1]

What's the background?
TheU.S. Supreme Court's use of principles of deference to executive interpretations dates back to the 1940s, with cases likeSkidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944), andBowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945). The 1984Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, which established theChevron deference doctine, was an important milestone in judicial deference. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings established other federal-level deference doctrines. The Supreme Court overturnedChevron deference in its 2024Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. While this decision did not apply to state-level deference doctrines, some states have subsequently passed lawslimiting judicial deference in state courts.

Click here to view a timeline of key events in the development of judicial deference at the federal level.

Click here to track state legislation related to judicial deference.

Dive Deeper:

• Background
  Read more
• Types of deference
  Read more
• Data on deference
  Read more
• State responses to judicial deference
  Read more

Background

TheU.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established the principle ofChevron deference, which required a federal court to yield to an agency's interpretation of a statute that Congress instructed the agency to administer if the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is deemed reasonable. Since the development ofChevron doctrine, theU.S. Supreme Court has adopted additional forms of deference to an agency's interpretation of either a statute that Congress instructed the agency to administer or a regulation promulgated by the agency. These deference regimes, known asSkidmore deference andAuer deference, are based onU.S. Supreme Court decisions issued during the 1940s. According to JusticeJohn Paul Stevens' 1984 opinion inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, theU.S. Supreme Court at the time had "long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer." JusticeAntonin Scalia echoed Stevens' claim in a 1989 lecture at Duke Law School, stating that "courts have been content to accept 'reasonable' executive interpretations of law for some time."^[2][3]

Types of deference

Chevron deference

See also:Chevron doctrine

According to JusticeScalia,Chevron deference is "the principle that the courts will accept an agency's reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous terms of a statute that the agency administers." UnderChevron deference, a federal court must defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency administers if the underlying statute is unclear and the agency's interpretation is deemed reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2024, to overturnChevron deference inLoper Bright v. Raimondo, holding that federal courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.^[4][3][5]

Skidmore deference

See also:Skidmore deference

Skidmore deference, developed in the opinion for the 2000U.S. Supreme Court caseChristensen v. Harris County and named for the 1944U.S. Supreme Court decision inSkidmore v. Swift & Co., allows a federal court to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. According to JusticeClarence Thomas' opinion inChristensen v. Harris County,Chevron deference is binding for agency rules developed through administrativerulemaking whileSkidmore deference is applied toagency interpretations "such as those in opinion letters—like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines."^[5][6]

JusticeRobert H. Jackson's opinion inSkidmore v. Swift & Co. states:^[5]

UnlikeChevron deference, a federal court exercisingSkidmore deference is not compelled to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute. Instead, the court determines the appropriate level of deference based on the agency's ability to demonstrate that its interpretation is based on valid reasoning.^[9][10]

Auer deference

See also:Auer v. Robbins

Auer deference, also known asSeminole Rock deference, is named for the 1997U.S. Supreme Court decision inAuer v. Robbins that reaffirmed a deference regime first described in the court's 1945 ruling inBowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. UnderAuer deference, a federal court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous regulation that the agency has promulgated. According to JusticeFrank Murphy's opinion inBowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., a court must yield to an agency's interpretation of its own unclear regulation unless the court finds that the interpretation is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."^[5][11][12]

Data on deference, 1983-2005

In 2008, professors William Eskridge Jr. and Lauren Baer published a study of "all Supreme Court cases decided betweenChevron (1983 Term) andHamdan (2005 Term) in which a federal agency interpretation of a statute was at issue, 1,014 in all." According to the authors:^[13]

The following table from Eskridge and Baer's study shows a breakdown of the various deference regimes cited by the Supreme Court in agency interpretation cases from 1983 to 2005:^[13]

State responses to judicial deference

Judicial deference is anadministrative law principle under whichcourts yield to an executive agency’s interpretation of a statute, regulation, or policy when certain conditions are met.State-level approaches to judicial deference vary significantly. States are not obliged to adopt federal deference doctrines. Twenty-seven states as of 2025, however, had implemented forms of judicial deference to state administrative agencies similar to the federal deference doctrines.^[14][15] Below is a selection of state government responses to judicial deference:

Kansas lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2026)

Kansas GovernorLaura Kelly (D) on February 6, 2026, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, HB 2183, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of state statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced on February 26, 2025, and amended on March 27, 2025. The bill passed theKansas State Senate on March 27, 2025, with a vote of 30-10, and passed theKansas House of Representatives on January 22, 2026, with a vote of 83-39.^[16]

North Carolina Supreme Court strikes downAuer-like judicial deference practices (2025)

On October 17, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in the case ofAlvin Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors.^[17] In this decision, the Court ruled that state courts should not use a principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations akin to the federal-levelAuer deference doctrine, and that they should instead use ade novo standard of review.^[18]

North Carolina Supreme Court strikes downChevron-like judicial deference practices (2025)

On August 22, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in the case ofThurman Crofton Savage v. N.C. Department of Transportation.^[19] In this decision, the Court ruled that state courts should not use a principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statute akin to the federal-levelChevron deference doctrine, and that they should instead use ade novo standard of review.^[20]

Missouri lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2025)

Missouri GovernorMike Kehoe (R) on July 11, 2025, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, SB 221, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by SenatorNick Schroer (R) on January 8, 2025. The bill passed theMissouri State Senate on March 6, 2025, with a vote of 25-7 and passed theMissouri House of Representatives on May 15, 2025, with a vote of 120-20-11.^[21]

Louisiana lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2025)

Louisiana GovernorJeff Landry (R) on June 8, 2025, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, HB 99, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of state statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by RepresentativeBeth Billings (R) on March 24, 2025. The bill passed theLouisiana House of Representatives on May 7, 2025, with a vote of 70-27, and passed theLouisiana State Senate on May 29, 2025, with a vote of 28-10.^[22]

Oklahoma lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2025)

Oklahoma GovernorKevin Stitt (R) on May 5, 2025, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, HB 2729, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by RepresentativeGerrid Kendrix (R) and RepresentativeMicheal Bergstrom (R) on February 3, 2025, and was inspired by model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The bill passed theOklahoma State Senate on May 5, 2025, with a vote of 37-8 and passed theOklahoma House of Representatives on May 14, 2025, with a vote of 71-16.^[23][24]

Texas lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2025)

Texas GovernorGreg Abbott (R) on April 23, 2025, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, SB 14, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by SenatorPhil King (R) on March 6, 2025, and was inspired by model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The bill passed theTexas State Senate on March 26, 2025, with a vote of 26-5 and passed theTexas House of Representatives on April 9, 2025, with a vote of 97-51.^[25][26]

Utah lawmakers reaffirm state sovereignty and limits to judicial deference practices (2025)

Utah lawmakers signed a joint resolution supporting the principles offederalism and urging adherence to the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) Supreme Court decision.^[27]

Kentucky lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2025)

Kentucky legislators overrode GovernorAndy Beshear's (D) veto of SB 84 on March 27, 2025. The bill ends judicial deference to administrative bodies for the interpretation of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was inspired by SenatorSteve Rawlings (R) on February 4, 2025, and was inspired by a model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The final bill was vetoed by Governor Beshear on March 24, 2025. TheKentucky House of Representatives moved to override his veto with a vote of 32-6, and theKentucky State Senate overrode his veto with a vote of 74-18 on March 27, 2025.^[28][29]

Idaho lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)

Idaho GovernorBrad Little (R) on March 29, 2024, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, HB 626, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by RepresentativeMike Moyle (R) and RepresentativeVito Barbieri (R) on February 22, 2024, and was inspired by model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The bill passed theIdaho House of Representatives on March 11, 2024, with a vote of 58-11-1 and passed theIdaho State Senate on March 25, 2024, with a vote of 31-1-2.^[30][31]

Nebraska lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)

Nebraska GovernorJim Pillen (R) on March 27, 2024, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, LB 43, prohibits courts from deferring to agency interpretations of statutes or rules and requires courts to applyde novo review.

The bill was introduced by State SenatorRita Sanders (R) on January 5, 2023, and was inspired by model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The bill passed theNebraska State Senate on March 21, 2024, with a vote of 39-0-10.^[32][33]

Indiana lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)

Indiana GovernorEric Holcomb (R) on March 13, 2024, signed a bill into law to end judicial deference practices in the state. The bill, HB 1003, ends judicial deference to agency interpretations of constitutional provisions, statutes, and regulations.

The bill was introduced on January 8, 2024, by RepresentativeGregory Steuerwald (R), and was inspired by model legislation developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The bill passed theIndiana House of Representatives on January 23, 2024, with a vote of 85-10, and passed theIndiana State Senate on March 5, 2024, with a vote of 40-7.^[34][35]

Ohio Supreme Court rejectsAuer deference (2023)

TheOhio Supreme Court on October 18, 2023, issued a ruling that ended the practice of state courts deferring to state agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations—a doctrine known asAuer deference in the federal courts.

In re Application of Alamo Solar I, LLC concerned challenges from a citizen group that opposed the development of two solar farms in Preble County, Ohio. The Ohio Power Sitting Board had approved the solar farms and imposed certain conditions on the development of the facilities. Though the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the agency action as lawful, JusticePat DeWine argued against the court’s exercise ofAuer deference.

Writing for the majority, Dewine cited the court’s 2022 decision inTWISM Ents., LLC v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors that endedChevron deference in the state. He further argued, “When a court defers to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, it allows the agency to assume the legislative power (the rule drafter), the judicial power (the rule interpreter), and the executive power (the rule enforcer).”

In a concurring opinion, JusticeJennifer L. Brunner argued that the court was not tasked with considering agency deference in the case. Brunner wrote that “the agency-deference issue addressed inTWISM … plays no part in our resolution of this case, and the majority’s discussion of TWISM is a distraction that is beyond the scope of what we were tasked with deciding.”^[36][37]

Ohio Supreme Court limitsChevron deference (2022)

TheOhio Supreme Court on December 29, 2022, ruled against applications ofChevron deference in the state. InTWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, the court found that state courts do not need to defer to state agency interpretations of the law—a deference doctrine known asChevron deference at the federal level.^[38]

Lower courts inTWISM deferred to the Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors’ interpretation of its engineering certification rules, which denied TWISM Enterprises’ application to provide professional engineering services because the company’s designated licensed engineer was an independent contractor rather than an employee. TWISM Enterprises appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of the governing statute was flawed because the law does not specify that the licensed engineer must be an employee of the business.^[38]

JusticePat DeWine (with JusticesSharon L. Kennedy,Pat Fischer, andMichael P. Donnelly concurring) disagreed with the agency’s interpretation of the statute and argued that the judicial branch has the authority to determine whether the statutory interpretations of state agencies are lawful. DeWine, writing for the court, argued “that it is the role of the judiciary, not administrative agencies, to make the ultimate determination about what the law means. Thus, the judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law.” DeWine added that “an agency interpretation is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court's own independent judgment as to what the law is.”^[38]

JusticesMaureen O’Connor,Melody Stewart, andJennifer Brunner concurred in the judgment only.^[38]

Tennessee lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2022)

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) on April 14, 2022, signed a bill aimed at ending judicial deference practices in the state.^[39]

Senate Bill 2285 requires courts to interpret state statutes or rulesde novo, as opposed to deferring to state agency interpretations of laws or regulations. The law also states, “After applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court shall resolve any remaining ambiguity against increased agency authority.” This resembles the rule of lenity in criminal law, which resolves ambiguities in favor of the defendant.^[39]

Colorado Supreme Court narrows state deference practices (2021)

In the wake of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s June 10, 2021, rejection of state-levelAuer deference, the Colorado Supreme Court followed suit in a June 14, 2021,en banc decision that narrowed applications ofBrand X deference andChevron deference practices in the state.^[40]

InNieto v. Clark’s Market, the court declined to extendBrand X deference to a regulation issued by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE).Brand X deference requires courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes even when the interpretations conflict with prior court precedent. The challenged regulation inNieto adopted an interpretation of a state labor law that departed from precedent set by the state Court of Appeals, but the Colorado Supreme Court declined to extendBrand X deference to the agency’s interpretation in the case.^[40]

“[T]he CDLE is a state agency, and the [U.S. Supreme] Court’s holding inBrand X is not binding as to parallel state administrative procedure statutes,” wrote Justice Melissa Hart in the opinion. “We have not yet similarly interpreted the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, and we decline Nieto’s invitation to do so here.”^[40]

The justices further rejected state-levelChevron deference, which compels a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an unclear statute. Justice Hart stated that while the court has appliedChevron-style deference in the past, “we have made clear that, while agency interpretations should be given due consideration, they are ‘not binding on the court.’”^[40]

Mississippi Supreme Court rejects state-levelAuer deference, ends judicial deference in state (2021)

TheMississippi Supreme Court on June 10, 2021, ruled 8-1 inMississippi Methodist Hospital and Rehabilitation Center Inc. v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid to end the state practice of deferring to agency interpretations of regulations, a doctrine known asAuer deference at the federal level. The court’s decision, combined with its prior rejection of state-levelChevron deference, effectively banned judicial deference practices in the state, according to an analysis by Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Daniel Ortner.^[41]

JusticeLeslie King wrote the opinion for the court, noting that the practice of “[d]eferring to agency interpretations of rules and regulations is inconsistent with the standard of review for statutory interpretation, causes confusion, causes inconsistencies in application and within our own caselaw, and violates article 1, section 2, of Mississippi’s Constitution.” The court’s decision institutes a new period ofde novo review over agency regulatory interpretations.^[42]

The court ended the state-levelChevron deference doctrine, which requires courts to defer to agency interpretations of unclear statutes, in the 2018 caseKing v. Mississippi Military Department. The justices argued that the practice violated the separation of powers prescribed by the state constitution. TheKing decision instituted a new standard ofde novo review over such agency interpretations, which the court later reaffirmed in a 2020 tax and gambling case.

Georgia lawmakers approve limits on judicial deference in tax cases (2021)

Georgia GovernorBrian Kemp (R) on April 29, 2021, signed into law Senate Bill 185, which limited judicial deference in the state by ending deference to certain tax regulations.^[43][44]

The bill, sponsored by state SenatorBo Hatchett (R) and six Republican cosponsors, required state courts and the Georgia Tax Tribunal to decide all questions of law without deference to the regulations or policy interpretations of the state’s Department of Revenue, among other provisions.^[43]

TheGeorgia House of Representatives on March 22 voted 164-4 to approve the bill. The state Senate unanimously approved the legislation on March 1. Georgia lawmakers had failed to approve similar legislation in 2020 before the close of the legislative session.^[43]

Arkansas Supreme Court endsChevron deference (2020)

An April 9, 2020, ruling by theArkansas Supreme Court limited how much deference agency interpretations of law would receive in the future. The court ruled inMeyers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. that the court should determine the meaning of state laws for itself and should not defer to state agency interpretations (a deference doctrine known asChevron deference in the federal courts).^[45]

JusticeShawn Womack delivered the opinion of the court and cited “the risk of giving core judicial powers to executive agencies in violation of the constitutionalseparation of powers” if they did not clarify how courts were supposed toreview agency decisions.^[45]

Womack wrote that the power and responsibility to interpret laws lies with the judicial branch while the executive branch enforces laws made and interpreted by the legislature and courts. He went on to say that by “giving deference to agencies’ interpretations of statutes, the court effectively transfers the job of interpreting the law from the judiciary to the executive. This we cannot do.”^[45]

Womack added that the court would review all future agency interpretations of statutes on ade novo basis, which means without relying on the agencies’ conclusions. He wrote that the court would interpret unambiguous laws based on the clear meaning of their texts. In cases where the law in question is ambiguous, he wrote that agency interpretations of that ambiguity would only be one of many tools the court would use to determine the meaning of the law.^[45]

Special Justice Scott Hilburn joined the opinion written by Justice Womack. JusticeKaren R. Baker concurred with the decision but did not write a separate opinion. Chief JusticeDan Kemp did not participate in the case. JusticeJosephine Hart wrote a dissenting opinion focusing on the facts of the case and not judicial deference in general.^[45]

Arkansas Supreme Court reiteratesChevron deference prohibition (2020)

The Arkansas Supreme Court on October 29, 2020, clarified inAmerican Honda Motor Co. v. Walther that state courts should not exercise deference to state agency interpretations of statutes (a deference doctrine known asChevron deference at the federal level). Instead, the court held that Arkansas state courts should review agency statutory interpretationsde novo.^[46]

The court’s decision reiterated its May 2020 holding inMeyers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. that the court should determine the meaning of state laws and not defer to state agency interpretations of statutes.^[46]

In an opinion by JusticeKaren Baker, the court cited its earlier holding inMeyers, stating that “it is the province and duty of this Court to determine what a statute means. In considering the meaning and effect of a statute, we construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. An unambiguous statute will be interpreted based solely on the clear meaning of the text. But where ambiguity exists, the agency’s interpretation will be one of our many tools used to provide guidance.”^[46]

Wisconsin Legislature endsChevron deference, codifies Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling (2018)

TheWisconsin Legislature approved legislation on December 5, 2018, that codified the intent of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling inTetra Tech, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, which ended the practice of judicial deference to the statutory interpretations of administrative agencies in the state—a doctrine known asChevron deference in the federal courts. The judicial deference provision was part of a larger legislative package passed by legislators during a lame duck session.^[47][48]

TheWisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision inTetra Tech, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue on June 26, 2018. The ruling ended the practice of judicial deference to the statutory interpretations made by administrative agencies in the state. The court stated in the case opinion, "We have also decided to end our practice of deferring to administrative agencies' conclusions of law. However, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.57(10), we will give 'due weight' to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of an administrative agency as we consider its arguments."^[49]

The case concerned the Wisconsin Department of Revenue's interpretation of a statute that classified the environmental remediation work of Lower Fox River Remediation LLC and its contracted firm, Tetra Tech EC Inc., as taxable activities. In reviewing the case, the court also considered whether the practice of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes, such as the disputed statutory interpretation of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, undermined the state judiciary's authority to interpret and determine the law. Though theWisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling and upheld the agency's interpretation that the companies' work constituted taxable activities, the court also determined that the practice of judicial deference to administrative agencies was contrary to Article VII, Section 2 of theWisconsin Constitution, which vests judicial power in the state judiciary.^[49]

Florida voters approve ballot measure prohibiting judicial deference (2018)

See also:Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment (2018)

TheFlorida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment ballot measure, passed by voters onNovember 6, 2018, prohibited state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation. The measure required state courts to interpret statutes or rulesde novo—that is, without deference to the legal opinions of administrative agencies or previous judgments.^[50]

The ballot measure was one of eight constitutional amendments referred to theNovember 6, 2018, ballot by theFlorida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) on April 16, 2018. The CRC bundled three proposed amendments related to trials, judges, and courts.^[50]

Mississippi Supreme Court ends state-levelChevron deference (2018)

On June 7, 2018, theMississippi Supreme Court issued a decision inKing v. Mississippi Military Department that ended the practice of judicial deference to the statutory interpretations made by administrative agencies in the state—a doctrine known asChevron deference at the federal level. The court stated in the case opinion, "[W]e announce today that we abandon the old standard of review giving deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Our pronouncements describing the level of deference were vague and contradictory, such that the deference could be anywhere on a spectrum from 'great' to illusory. Moreover, in deciding no longer to give deference to agency interpretations, we step fully into the role the Constitution of 1890 provides for the courts and the courts alone, to interpret statutes."^[51]

The case concerned a review of the dismissal of Cindy King, a former employee of the Mississippi Military Department. King appealed her dismissal to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board, which dismissed the case on the grounds that the military department's employment activities were outside of the board's jurisdiction. In reviewing the case, the court also questioned whether the practice of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes undermined the state judiciary's authority to interpret and determine the law. Though the court upheld King's dismissal on the grounds that the department's adjutant general has broad statutory discretion over agency employment outside of the scope of the board, the court also determined that judicial deference to agencies conflicted with the constitutional authority of the state judiciary to interpret statutes.^[52]

Mississippi Supreme Court reaffirms end of state-levelChevron deference (2020)

The Mississippi Supreme Court on May 28, 2020, unanimously held in a tax and gambling case that a state tax statute requiring judicial deference to a state agency’s interpretation of an unclear law (Chevron deference) was unconstitutional because it prohibited the court from exercising its constitutional duty to interpret the law.^[53]

The court reaffirmed its 2018 ruling inKing v. Mississippi Military Department, which ended the state-levelChevron deference doctrine on the grounds that the practice violated the separation of powers prescribed by the state constitution. TheKing decision instituted a new standard ofde novo review.^[53]

The court further clarified in the tax case that theKing decision applied to any state statute requiring the Chevron deference doctrine.^[53]

Arizona lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2018)

Arizona GovernorDoug Ducey (R) on April 11, 2018, signed into law House Bill 2238, which ended judicial deference practices in the state by instructing courts to decide all questions of law without deference to government agencies, including on matters of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory interpretation. This requirement "applies in any action for judicial review of any agency action that is authorized by law." The law also included two exceptions to this requirement. First, for healthcare-related appeals arising from a specific article of Arizona law, courts are instructed to defer to agencies unless they find that the agency action in question "is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, isarbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of discretion." Second, agencies created pursuant to theArizona Corporation Commission (the state's utility regulator) are exempt. At the time it was passed, the law was the first of its kind at the state or federal level.^[54][55][56]

Utah Supreme Court ends judicial deference practices (2013)

TheUtah Supreme Court in 2013 held inMurray v. Utah Labor Commission that the court would no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes or regulations. The court "distinguished between the distinct concepts of 'discretion' and 'deference,' and noted that while an agency may be given discretion in matters of policy, it could not be delegated deference in matters of law since the correct interpretation of a statute 'has a single "right" answer in terms of the trajectory of the law' and is best resolved by the judiciary without deference," according to administrative law scholar Daniel M. Ortner. The court went on to explicitly rejectChevron deference in the 2014 caseHughes General Contractors Inc. v. Utah Labor Commission andAuer deference in the 2016 caseEllis-Hall Consultants v. Public Service Commission.^[41][57]

Kansas Supreme Court ends judicial deference practices (2013)

TheKansas Supreme Court held in the 2013 caseDouglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems LLC that the court would no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes or regulations. JusticeLee A. Johnson wrote in the opinion that the exercise of judicial deference in the state "has been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books where it will never again affect the outcome of an appeal."^[41][58]

Michigan Supreme Court endsChevron deference (2008)

On July 23, 2008, theMichigan Supreme Court issued a decision inIn re: Complaint of Rovas against SBC Michigan that ended the practice of judicial deference to the statutory interpretations made by administrative agencies in the state—a deference doctrine known asChevron deference in the federal courts. The court stated in the case opinion, "[I]n accordance with longstanding Michigan precedent and basic separation of powers principles, we hold and reaffirm that an agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to 'respectful consideration,' but courts may not abdicate their judicial responsibility to interpret statutes by giving unfettered deference to an agency's interpretation."^[59]

The case concerned the interpretation of a provision of the Michigan Telecommunications Act by theMichigan Public Service Commission (PSC). In reviewing the case, the court questioned whether the practice of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes undermined the state judiciary's authority to interpret and determine the law. The court disagreed with the PSC's interpretation of the statute, reversed the decision of the court of appeals, and also determined that judicial deference to agencies conflicted with the constitutional authority of the state judiciary to interpret statutes.^[59]

Delaware Supreme Court endsChevron deference (1999)

TheDelaware Supreme Court in 1999 held inPublic Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale that the court would no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes—a deference doctrine known asChevron deference in the federal courts. In its decision, the court "overturned past decisions to the contrary, and 'reaffirmed [its] plenary standard of review,'" according to administrative law scholar Daniel M. Ortner.^[41][57]

State legislation related to judicial review and deference

The following table lists bills related to judicial deference to administrative decisions that have been introduced in state legislatures. Click the column headers to sort the table by that field.

See also

• Chevron deference
• Skidmore deference
• Auer deference
• Rulemaking
• Supreme Court of the United States

External links

• Supreme Court of the United States homepage
• Code of Federal Regulations
• Federal Register
• 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