One of the most important principles in
administrative law, the “Chevron deference” was coined after a landmark case,
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron deference is referring to the
doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In
Chevron, the
Supreme Court set forth a
legal test as to when the
court should defer to the
agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as
Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.
The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the
statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in
Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute.
In other words, lower courts have been bound by former Justice Stevens’ assertion that “reasonable interpretations” of statutes by administrative agencies are to not be overruled. In this case, the word “reasonable” has been stretched to absolute extremes, and that has allowed the bureaucratic state to reign supreme with near impunity.
That’s how you get the ATF banning bump stocks despite there being no actual statutory allowance for such a violation of personal freedom. It’s also how you get the lion’s share of environmental regulations, including
literal puddles in backyards being hit with ridiculous, costly EPA enforcement. The federal government has been completely out of control for decades, and the Chevron Doctrine has been at the heart of many of the abuses.