U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–454 PDF 2016

THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY QUESTIONS 

IN JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

REGULATORY REFORM, 

COMMERCIAL AND ANTITRUST LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM, COMMERCIAL AND ANTITRUST LAW

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DANIEL FLORES, Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 15, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Georgia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law ................................................. 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5 

WITNESSES 

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia 

School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32 

George Shepherd, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 44 

Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Emily Hammond, Associate Dean for Public Engagement & Professor of Law, 

The George Washington University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Jack M. Beermann, Professor of Law and Harry Elwood Warren Scholar, 

Boston University School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 73 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 75 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. 

Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School . 112 

Response to Questions for the Record from Emily Hammond, Associate Dean 

for Public Engagement & Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School .................................................................................................... 115 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Supplemental statement submitted by Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School. The statement is 

available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104665 
(1) 

THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE: CONSTITUTIONAL 

AND STATUTORY QUESTIONS IN JUDICIAL 

DEFERENCE TO AGENCIES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM, COMMERCIAL AND ANTITRUST LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:24 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Marino, Goodlatte, Issa, Collins, 

Ratcliffe, Bishop, Johnson, Conyers, DelBene, and Jeffries. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Daniel Flores, Chief Counsel; Andrea 

Lindsey, Clerk; (Minority) Slade Bond, Minority Counsel; and Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. MARINO. The Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law will come to order. I apologize. First of all, 

we had votes and tried to get through them as quickly as possible. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone here to today’s 

hearing on the Chevron Doctrine: Constitutional and Statutory 

Questions of Judicial Deference to Agencies. And I now recognize 

myself for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing on the 30-plus-year-old Chevron doctrine presents interesting questions on the current state of the separation 

of powers, and the role of today’s administrative state. These questions directly address the way our tripartite system of government 

works. For one, has judicial review of agency action evolved in a 

manner that respects the Constitution and the roles intended for 

the legislative, executive, and judicial branches? If there are issues, 

what can and should Congress do to address them? 

In Chevron, the Supreme Court established a framework for how 

courts should review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether the statute at hand clearly speaks to the question addressed by 

the agency action. If it does, then the court must conclude that the 

agency acted as Congress willed it. But if the statute is silent, or 

ambiguous, and congressional intent is not clear, then the court 

must consider whether or not the agency’s interpretation is based 
2 

on a permissible instruction of the statute. If it is, then the court 

defers to the agency’s interpretation. 

Although the Chevron doctrine is not as glamorous or headline 

worthy as some other issues we face in Congress, its indirect effect 

on the everyday lives of Americans cannot be understated. Its implications for the balance between the three branches of our government can be quite severe. In fact, many of the most significant 

decisions of the Supreme Court, in recent memory, centered on 

questions of administrative law. The focus is often on how agency 

officials interpreted a statute, rather than the substance of a statute itself as enacted by elected Members of Congress. 

In this environment, Chevron and the cases that followed have 

caused confusion, instead of stability in the rulemaking process. In 

Marbury v. Madison, among the earliest precedents set by the 

Court, Chief Justice Marshall declared that, ‘‘It is the province and 

duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’’ By mandating deference to agency interpretation of statutes, however, the 

judiciary has arguably stripped its own ability and charge to do 

just that. For those of us up here on the dais, Chevron raises additional concerns. 

Throughout my time in Congress, and as a Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have decried the breadth and decree to which 

Congress has ceded its power to the executive branch and its agencies. Over 30 years of Chevron deference, we have seen the gradual 

creep of executive agencies from administrators of the legislative 

process to becoming legislators themselves. 

As Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence to the Court’s Michigan v. EPA decision from last summer: ‘‘Statutory ambiguity thus 

becomes an implicit delegation of rulemaking authority, and that 

authority is used not to find the best meaning of the text, but to 

formulate legally binding rules to fill in gaps based on policy judgments made by the agency rather than Congress.’’ 

In short, rather than executing the will of Congress, as set forth 

clearly through statute, agencies now have the freedom to define 

the law as they see fit. Some may argue that even the use of Chevron could be avoided by clearer legislation. This is true, and should 

be a goal for all in Congress. But, as long as Chevron stands, it still 

will not eliminate the opportunity and incentives for unelected bureaucrats, removed from the effects of their actions to set policy for 

our entire Nation. And we have seen it with just a small sample 

of overreaching EPA regulations like the Clean Power Plan, Waters 

of the U.S., and the Utility MACT rule found invalid in Michigan 

v. EPA. 

A possibility of Chevron deference encourages a search, by those 

inside and outside of government, for ambiguity in a statute that 

allows them to engage in creative rulemakings to accomplish whatever goals an agency or organization may have. Today, we get to 

examine all of these results. We are fortunate to have an excellent 

panel of witnesses before us to present a variety of views. I look 

forward to hearing from each of you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, 

my friend, Mr. Johnson from Georgia, for his opening statements. 
3 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome everyone 

to this very riveting issue. Judicial review of final agency action is 

a hallmark of administrative law and is critical to ensuring that 

agency action does not harm or adversely affect the public. 

As the Supreme Court clarified recently, this significant policy 

concern has long supported a general rule favoring judicial review 

of agency action for arbitrariness and abuse of discretion subject 

only to rare exceptions. But as the Supreme Court held in Chevron 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, reviewing courts may only 

invalidate an agency action when it violates a constitutional provision, or when the agency’s rule exceeds its statutory authority to 

issue the rule as clearly expressed by Congress. 

For the past 30 years, this seminal decision has required deference to the substantive expertise and political accountability of 

Federal agencies. Professor Ron Levin, chair of the Judicial Review 

Committee for the Administrative Conference Of the United States, 

explains that this doctrine is born from principles of separation of 

powers, noting that it ‘‘recognizes that Congress often decides to 

entrust policymaking authority in certain areas when it does so, 

and the agency acts within the scope of that delegation as the court 

understands it, a court is obliged to honor the legislature’s expectations by upholding a rational exercise of that authority, even where 

the agency reaches a conclusion that the reviewing court would not 

have reached.’’ 

Although Chevron has taken on talismanic qualities in recent 

years, courts retain an important role in determining whether an 

agency action is permissible or arbitrary and capricious under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

In 2011, the court indicated that at the very least, there is substantial overlap between the second step of Chevron and ‘‘hard look 

reviewing,’’ under the APA. And while there is no shortage of debate on the principles of judicial deference as the American Bar Association administrative law section noted in 2012, Judicial Review 

largely remains stable today concluding that, ‘‘Debate on these 

principles continues, but the prevailing system works reasonably 

well, and no need for legislative intervention to revise these principles is apparent.’’ 

I similarly oppose any attempt to abolish judicial deference 

through legislation. While I consider myself an ardent protector of 

the courts, it is a well-established doctrine that the province of the 

courts is deciding matters of the law, not substantive matters specifically delegated to agencies by Congress. 

Since the 112th Congress, many of the majority’s deregulatory 

bills we have considered will enlist generalist courts to supplant 

the expertise and political accountability of agencies in the rulemaking process. Compare this approach with other deregulatory 

bills passed by Congress which would greatly diminish judicial review over deregulatory actions. For example, the House adopted an 

amendment to H.R. 8, the ‘‘North American Energy Security and 

Infrastructure Act of 2015,’’ which reduced the statute of limitations for judicial review to just 90 days for certain energy claims. 

Immunizing certain energy projects from public accountability. In 

other words, the majority wants it both ways. 
4 

When it benefits corporate interest, the regulatory legislation 

dramatically increases the judicial review of new regulations, 

threatening to impose years of delay and untold cost on taxpayers. 

When it benefits the public or our environment, deregulatory legislation closes the courthouse doors through sweeping restrictions on 

the court’s inability to provide relief. So we have one set of rules 

for consumers, and one set of rules for corporations. 

These proposals, which are transparently the design of the donor 

class to minimize their exposure to legal accountability, are just 

another example of how some not only want to allow the fox to 

guard the chicken coop, they want the fox to install the chicken 

wire as well. 

In closing, I look forward to testimony from our esteemed panel. 

Pardon my attempt at humor. I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, 

Chairman Goodlatte, has been detained. He may show up, but in 

the event he does not, without objection, I offer his opening statement to be entered into the record. 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Goodlatte follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

The modern federal administrative state is an institution unforeseen by the Framers of our Constitution and rapidly mushrooming out of control. Today’s hearing focuses on one of the pillars of that state—the Chevron doctrine, under which federal 

courts regularly defer to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of the statutes they administer. 

In perhaps the most famous of the Supreme Court’s early decisions, Marbury v. 

Madison, Chief Justice Marshall declared for a unanimous court that, ‘‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law 

is.’’ 

Since the Chevron doctrine allows judges to evade saying what the law is, and 

instead defer to agencies’ interpretations, one must ask—is Chevron faithful to 

Marbury and the separation of powers? 

In the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, often called the ‘‘constitution’’ of administrative law, Congress provided for judicial review of agency action in terms 

that, like Marbury, were plain and direct. It stated that ‘‘the reviewing court shall 

decide all relevant questions of law [and] interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions[.]’’ 

That standard is consistent with Marbury and the separation of powers. But since 

Chevron allows judges to escape interpreting statutory provisions themselves, one 

must ask—is Chevron unfaithful, not only to Marbury, but also to the Administrative Procedure Act? 

These are not just academic questions. They are fundamental questions that go 

to the heart of how our government works and whether the American people can 

still control it. 

The genius of the Constitution was that, by separating the legislative, executive 

and judicial powers into three distinct branches, the ambitions of each branch would 

check and balance the ambitions of the others. As long as the separation is kept 

strong, that system of checks and balances preserves liberty—as the Framers intended. 

But judicial deference under Chevron weakens the separation of powers, threatening liberty. It bleeds out of the Judicial Branch power to say what the law is, 

transfusing that power into the Executive Branch. And, it tempts Congress to let 

the hardest work of legislating bleed out of Congress and into the Executive Branch, 

since Congress knows judges will defer to agency interpretations of ambiguities and 

gaps in statutes Congress did not truly finish. 
5 

This leads us down the dangerous slope James Madison warned against in Federalist 47—‘‘[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in 

the same hands,’’ that ‘‘may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’’ 

This is what Americans across our Nation feel in their bones to be dangerous 

when they fear a federal regulatory bureaucracy growing beyond limits and spinning out of control. They fear a government emboldened to burst our system of 

checks and balances, trespass without limit on their liberty, and threaten their way 

of life—all at the whim of ‘‘swarms of administrators’’ in a far-off capital. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses as we explore the Chevron doctrine and what can be done in response to strengthen the separation of powers. I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair now recognizes the full Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues, today’s 

hearing focuses on whether the Supreme Court’s articulation of judicial deference in Chevron is a concept that should be retained in 

Federal administrative law. I believe the Chevron doctrine should 

be retained for several reasons: First, enhanced judicial review 

would make rulemaking even more costly and time-consuming for 

agencies. The Federal rulemaking process is already deeply ossified, as they say. 

As the Nation’s leading administrative law scholars have long observed, agency rulemaking is hampered by burdens imposed by 

both the courts and Congress. Indeed, Professor Richard Pierce, 

one of our witnesses, noted that more than 20 years ago, that the 

judicial branch is responsible for most of the ossification for the 

rulemaking process. Heightened judicial review would only worsen 

this problem because it would force agencies to formulate even 

more detail, factual records and explanations. 

Enhanced judicial review could also have the perverse effect of 

undermining agency accountability and transparency. It could encourage agencies to conduct rulemaking out of the public view, to 

issue guidance documents in lieu of rulemaking, or to cause them 

to avoid rulemaking altogether. 

I’m also concerned that the enhanced judicial review will undermine public participation in the rulemaking process. As the nonpartisan congressional research service has observed, public participation and agency decisionmaking is highly sensitive to cost and 

delay. And applying greater judicial scrutiny of agency rulemaking 

will favor those who can afford these greater costs. 

Large corporate interests, which are accountable only to shareholders and devoted to maximizing profits, already have the edge 

with their vast resources to bury an agency in paperwork demands 

and litigation with a goal of weakening regulatory standards. Rather than providing even more opportunities for the voices of corporate interests to prevail, we should be considering ways to ensure the voices of the public are strengthened in the rulemaking 

process. 

And finally, enhanced judicial review would encourage judicial 

activism. A less deferential judicial review standard would allow 

judges, in my view, to effectively make public policy from the bench 

while lacking the specialized expertise that agencies possess. 
6 

The Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to expand 

judicial review of rulemaking, but it has consistently rejected this 

approach. This reflects its long-held belief that generalist courts 

lack the subject matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench. Enhanced judicial review, on the other 

hand, would allow general courts to impose their rules, to impose 

their personal policy preferences. 

It’s ironic that the majority, which has long decried judicial activism, now seeks to give the judiciary a greater role in agency rulemaking. And what would be the impact on slowing down the rulemaking process? It means that rules intended to protect the health 

and safety of American citizens would take longer to promulgate 

and become effective. This means a delay for regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe, and the safety of the water 

we drink, and the food we consume. And, so, I welcome the witnesses. I look forward to their testimony and return any time that 

I may not have used. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. I will begin now by swearing 

in our witnesses before I introduce you. So you would please stand 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all the witnesses have responded in 

the affirmative. 

I’m going to go through each one of your bios and then we’ll come 

back and start with questions. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University 

Law School. He has served as counsel in some of the most notable 

case of the last two decades. He has served as a consultant on 

Homeland Security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent expert witness for Congress on constitutional and statutory issues. 

As a nationally recognized legal scholar, Professor Turley has 

written extensively in a range of areas. His articles have appeared 

in a variety of leading law journals and national newspapers. And 

he also contributes regularly to nationally syndicated news outlets. 

He is ranked 38 in the top 100 most public intellectuals, and was 

found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. Professor Turley earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of 

Chicago, and his law degree from Northwestern University. Welcome, Professor. 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. John Duffy is the Samuel H. McCoy Professor of 

Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Prior to joining 

UVA’s law school, Professor Duffy taught at the George Washington, Benjamin N. Cardozo and William & Mary Schools of Law 

as well as the University of Chicago. Professor Duffy also served 

as an attorney adviser in the Department of Justice’s office of legal 

counsel and practiced law with the firm of Covington & Burling. 

Professor Duffy is widely published and the coauthor of the casebook on patent law. Professor Duffy earned his bachelor’s degree in 
7 

physics from Harvard University, and has a law degree from University of Chicago, where he served as article’s editor of the law review. 

Professor Duffy clerked for Judge Steven Williams on the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and for the late U.S. Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia. 

Mr. Shepherd is a professor at the Emory University School of 

Law. Prior to that, he served as a visiting professor of law at the 

University of Dresden in Germany and a lecturer for Kaplan Bar 

Review. Mr. Shepherd practiced commercial litigation and bankruptcy law at the firm of Howard Rice in San Francisco, California. 

Professor Shepherd’s articles, working papers, and books have been 

featured in various national publications and leading law journals. 

He has appeared as an expert witness before various panels as well 

as the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Professor Shepherd 

graduated Summa Cum Laude from Yale with a degree in economics. He holds a law degree from the Harvard Law School, and a 

Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. Welcome, sir. 

Richard Pierce is the Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law at 

George Washington University Law School. He has taught and researched in the fields of administrative law and regulatory practice 

for 38 years. Professor Pierce has taught at many law schools, including Columbia, SMU, the University of Kansas, the University 

of Virginia and the Pittsburgh School of Law. Professor Pierce has 

published widely on administrative law and regulatory policy. His 

books and articles have been cited in hundreds of agency and court 

opinions, including over a dozen opinions of the United States Supreme Court. He is a member of the administrative conference of 

the United States. 

Professor Pierce served our country in the U.S. Coast Guard in 

various capacities. He earned his bachelor’s degree in economics 

from Lehigh University, he holds a law degree from the University 

of Virginia School of Law where he graduated Order of the Coif 

and served as managing editor of law review. Professor, welcome. 

Emily Hammond is the associate dean for Public Engagement 

and Professor of Law at the George Washington University law 

school. Professor Hammond previously taught at several universities, including Wake Forest, the University of Oklahoma College 

of Law, the University of Texas, Florida State University and the 

University of Georgia. Professor Hammond practiced law with 

Bondurant—— 

Ms. HAMMOND. Bondurant, yes. 

Mr. MARINO [continuing].—Mixson & Elmore in Atlanta, Georgia. 

As a former environmental engineer, her expertise included electricity markets, regulatory jurisdictions and the various responses 

of legal institutions to scientific uncertainty. Professor Hammond’s 

articles have appeared in numerous top ranked journals and she is 

the coauthor of one of the Nation’s leading energy law texts. She 

is an elected member of the American Law Institute, a chair elect 

of the Association of American Law Schools Administrative law section, and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform. 

She has served as a hearing examiner for state administrative proceedings and has provided service to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Professor Hammond earned her bachelor’s degree in 
8 

economics from Virginia Tech and a JD from the University of 

Georgia. Welcome, Professor. 

Jack Beermann is the Harry Elwood Warren Scholar at the Boston University School of Law. He previously taught at various universities, including Harvard, DePaul, the Interdisciplinary Center 

in Herzliya, Israel, and the Chinese University of Political Science 

and Law. 

Professor Beermann is published widely in top-ranked journals. 

He has authored and coauthored four books on administrative law, 

including a widely-used case book and the Emanuel Law Outline 

on the subject. Professor Beermann earned his bachelor’s degree in 

political science and philosophy from the University of Wisconsin 

at Madison. He holds a law degree from the University of Chicago 

Law School, where he was elected Order of the Coif and served as 

an editor of the Law Review. Professor, welcome. 

We’re going to begin with opening statement, Professor Turley, 

before we do, there are lights in front of you, and I’m sure that several of you know what those lights are for. I’m colorblind, so I don’t 

know what colors they are. So I’d ask you to keep your statements 

5 minutes or less. And if you start to go over 5 minutes, I will diplomatically raise this little thing and tap here to get your attention. 

So I thank you, and I’d like to start with Professor Turley. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF 

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Johnson, Ranking Committee Member Conyers, Members of the 

Subcommittee, it is a great honor to appear before you today to 

talk about the Chevron doctrine, its constitutional implications for 

our system. It is a particular pleasure to appear on this esteemed 

panel with these academics, including my colleagues from GW, 

Dick Pierce and Emily Hammond, and my former colleague from 

GW, John Duffy, who left us to join some nest of Jeffersonians 

south from here, but we appreciate you allowing him to come back 

to the big city on occasion. 

This is obviously a very important question for many of us. When 

look at it from different perspectives, I think what you’re going to 

see today is sort of a microcosm of the field. How Chevron is viewed 

differs, whether you view it from a constitutional standpoint, or 

from an administrative law standpoint, or perhaps a hybrid of 

those two areas. 

From my perspective, Chevron is a deeply problematic subject. I’d 

like to say, as Woody Allen once said, that I wish I could leave you 

with a positive point, but ask if you’d accept two negative points 

instead. From a Madisonian standpoint, I’m afraid the best you can 

hope for is to get two negative points to make a positive, but it 

doesn’t quite work. And I would like to explain why. 

I previously testified and written about what is called the Rise 

of the Fourth Branch, and how that has created an imbalance in 

our system, and, particularly, drained away some of the authority 

from Congress, which is so important to the balance of our three 

branches. 
9 

To take a look at the administrative state as it is sometimes 

called, it is obvious that our system has changed. When this republic started, we only had about 1,000 people in non military positions. Obviously, it was quite small. 

In 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, in that same year 

Federal agencies enacted about 3,000 rules. To put it in a judicial 

standpoint, judges that year in a given year handled about 100,000 

cases. Federal agencies have adjudicatory proceedings ranging 

around 1 million. 

The question then becomes is the dominant source of law making 

or law giving in the country? I think it is obvious that we have had 

a shift in gravity in our system toward this administrative state. 

The implications of that are worthy of discussion, they create new 

pathways and power centers in a system that wasn’t designed for 

them. 

Now, my colleagues and I have different views of the implications 

of that. Chevron is one of those subjects that will deeply divide 

most academics, but, in my view, Chevron was solving a problem 

that didn’t exist. It, on its face, sought to limit the role of judges, 

which is not a bad thing in terms of agency decisions. But it had 

sort of Trojan Horse aspects to it. It arrived in a benign form, and 

it became more aggressive and, indeed, menacing in time. Chevron 

allowed a very permissive standard for agencies. As allowed the administrative state to be insulated to a degree that I think is, in 

fact, dangerous. 

Now, before Chevron, we didn’t have a period of utter confusion 

or tyranny under the Skidmore standard. Agencies were given ‘‘respect’’ and considerable weight in their interpretations; that’s why 

some of us view it as solving problem that didn’t really exist. 

And indeed, recently, the court has almost a buyer’s remorse in 

how it has tried to limit Chevron. You’ve seen in the Christensen 

case, for example, this limitation of Chevron to a force of law cases. 

You’ve seen in other cases how the Court has tried to distinguish 

circumstances where Skidmore and Ellis would apply as opposed to 

Chevron analysis. 

But I think one the most problematic aspects of Chevron is seen 

in the City of Arlington case, where that deference was given to an 

agency in defining its own jurisdiction. In my testimony, I’ve recommended a series of possible approaches of Congress based on the 

delegation theory of Chevron that I recommended, and I’d be happy 

to talk about those to the Committee. 

And I will simply end by saying that I don’t believe you need to 

treat Chevron as a fait accompli, or have a fatalistic view of Chevron. Chevron is not evil, it is not tyrannical, but that doesn’t mean 

that it cannot be improved. And so I’m happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Professor Duffy. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. DUFFY, SAMUEL H. McCOY II PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Johnson, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify before you today. At the outset, I’d 

like to compliment the Subcommittee for devoting time and attention to the Chevron doctrine. This single doctrine has enormous 

practical and theoretical importance in the courts. And yet, it remains deeply controversial and confusing. 

I believe that the Congress could write and enact clarifying legislation to supplant Chevron with more theoretically sound, and 

more easily understood principles. 

I want to begin with two significant missteps, made in the Chevron opinion itself. First, and most importantly, the Supreme Court 

decided for itself, based on its own assessments of good policy and 

institutional competence where the Court should defer to agency 

statutory interpretations. The Court assumed, at least implicitly 

that Congress did not have an opinion on the matter. That implicit 

assumption was wrong. If the Court considered statutory law, it 

would have found that the first sentence of 706 of the APA requires 

the reviewing court to decide all relevant questions of law. And it 

would have found that the text structure, legislative history and a 

consistent line of judicial precedence all supported reading that 

sentence as requiring de novo review of agency interpretations. 

Second, the Chevron court muddled the distinction between giving some weight to an agency’s view as a part of the process of interpreting the statute, and recognizing the scope of an agency’s delegated rulemaking or lawmaking powers. 

Traditionally, courts engaged in statutory interpretations would 

not afford an agency’s view significant weight if the agency had 

flip-flopped on its interpretation. The intuition here is easy to understand, where an agency has held inconsistent views, the varying 

agency positions are simply unhelpful in determining a statute’s 

meanings. 

By contrast, where an agency is wielding a delegated lawmaking 

power, courts fully expect administrative change. Indeed, the ability of an agency to change is part and parcel of a rulemaking 

power, which, as defined by the APA, encompasses not just the 

power to formulate rules, but also the power to amend and to repeal prior rules. 

Chevron blended these two concepts together. It treated the issue 

in the case as involving deference, but borrowed from the delegation theories the crucial point that agencies can change their positions with no penalty whatsoever. As shown in my written testimony, Chevron itself is an excellent demonstration of how agencies 

exercise their delegated rulemaking powers, and the government 

itself presented the case to the Supreme Court on a delegation theory. The courts articulation of the new theory of statutory interpretation was as unnecessary as it was unwarranted. 

Post Chevron cases, especially United States v. Mead and King 

v. Burwell, have begun to reinterpret Chevron as the doctrine 

about delegation rather than deference. Nevertheless, corrective 
31 

legislation would still be desirable because the case law remains 

deeply confusing. 

I believe legislation should be drafted around four principles: 

First and foremost, that Congress should reassert, in the clearest 

possible terms, that reviewing courts are to decide all questions of 

law and decide those questions de novo, without any deference to 

the administrative agency’s positions. 

Second, the legislation should recognize that where Congress has 

delegated lawmaking powers to an agency, reviewing courts should 

give proper scope to those powers, and allow the agency to write 

rules that are not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. This 

principle would count for the actual result in the Chevron case, but 

would make clear that the agency’s power is grounded in the congressional delegation and not in deference. 

Third, the Congress might also consider recognizing the traditional view that some administrative issues are mixed questions of 

law, in fact, and the courts might properly give some deference to 

the agency’s application of law to the facts of a particular case. 

Fourth and finally, Congress might also recognize the principle 

articulated by the Supreme Court in Skidmore v. Swift that in interpreting a statute de novo, courts may consider an agency’s position as some evidence of a statute’s meaning. Importantly, the 

agency would not have the power to control, but merely the power 

to persuade, a respect similar in kind to what might be afforded 

a prominent treatise, or nice law review article. Together, these 

principles reaffirm what Congress previously codified in section 706 

of the APA, and restore the court’s traditional role as articulated 

in Marbury v. Madison, to say with the law is. 

Thank you for your time and attention to these issues, and thank 

you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duffy follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Dr. Shepherd, please accept my apology for not referring to you 

as Dr. Shepherd when I started reading your bio. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SHEPHERD, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Johnson, Ranking Committee Member Conyers, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. 

Let me summarize my main point, and then explain it in detail. 

In the Chevron decision and cases following it, the courts have 

often given deference to legal interpretations. However, as Professor Duffy has noted, the Administrative Procedure Act said and 

still says the opposite. The APA explicitly says that there should 

be no deference on pure issues of law. And the APA’s legislative 

history backs that up. 

Let me now discuss this in a bit more detail. The APA was a 

compromise between liberal New Dealers, including President Roosevelt, and conservative opponents of the New Deal. It is the bill 

of rights for the administrative state. It has remained in force with 

little change for 70 years. 

What does this founding document say about judicial review? 

The APA says that there should be no deference on issues of law. 

So here is the provision, the scope of review: The reviewing court 

shall decide all relevant questions of law and interpret constitutional and statutory provisions. 

The provisions of the APA don’t say anything about giving any 

deference on questions of law. If the drafters had wanted to, they 

knew how to create deference. Indeed, other nearby parts of the 

APA said that there should be deference on issues of fact. And the 

provision of the APA really means what is it says. To see this, let’s 

look at the legislative history. 

By the early 1940’s, the Court had developed the following system: The Court said that there would be deference for agency decisions of fact, and for agency decisions of mixed fact and law. But 

there would be deference for decisions of law. At the time of the 

APA, everyone understood that the APA would codify and restate 

the Court’s existing approach. This was shown by the understanding of three groups: first, participants in the legislative process; second, contemporary commentators; and finally, the courts. 

First, the participants in the legislative process said this. As the 

bill that became the APA worked its way through Committees, all 

the reports said just that. For example, the Senate Judiciary Committee said, [‘‘The provision on Judicial Review] seeks merely to restate the several categories of questions of law for judicial review.’’ 

Likewise, in testimony in the House Judiciary Committee, the 

Attorney General said: ‘‘This declares the existing law concerning 

the scope of judicial review.’’ 

The Senate and House reports indicated the following: ‘‘This subsection provides that questions of law are for courts rather than 

agencies to decide in the last analysis.’’ 

The second group that said that the APA confirmed existing law 

was contemporary commentators. They said this in publications 

that appeared shortly after the APA became law in 1946. 
43 

For example, one commentator wrote in 1948 that ‘‘[the provisions] ‘would appear to be quite simply a restatement of the 

present powers which reviewing courts possess, and frequently exercise, of reviewing relevant questions of constitutional and statutory law . . .’ ’’ 

The third group that understood the APA to merely restate existing law was the courts. 

Mr. MARINO. Doctor, could you please pull that microphone closer 

to you? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Was the courts. 

Mr. MARINO. It is still not working. Excuse me, a moment. I don’t 

mean to interrupt. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. The button was not pushed. 

[Sound issue resolved.] 

Mr. MARINO. All right. I hope I don’t have to repeat my entire 

testimony. 

The third group that understood the APA to restate existing law 

was the courts. After the APA was adopted, the courts did just the 

same thing that they did before the APA. They gave deference on 

fact questions and mixed questions; but they gave no deference on 

issues of law. If the Supreme Court had understood the APA to 

change the scope of judicial review, then the APA’s adoption would 

have caused the court to change its approach, but that did not happen. 

To sum up, the APA’s provisions on judicial review are inconsistent with the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine requires 

courts to give deference to many agency decisions of law; the APA 

says the opposite. It explicitly requires courts to give no deference 

to agency’s decisions of law. And the APA’s legislative history confirms this. 

Suppose the people who were involved in the passage of the APA 

took a time machine to today. They would be shocked at the Chevron doctrine. Indeed, it is easy to understand why the Chevron doctrine appeared only 38 years after the APA’s adoption and not 

sooner. For many years, memories of the APA’s true meaning were 

fresh. Only when memories started to fade, or to die out, could the 

courts adopt an approach that ignored administrative law’s fundamental statute. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepherd follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Professor Pierce. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., LYLE T. ALVERSON 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Johnson and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for providing me the opportunity to testify today. I just want to go 

through a couple of basics to start with. First, courts always have 

and always will, confer to some degree of deference on agencies 

when they act because of comparative institutional expertise. The 

agencies know more than the courts about the subject matter that 

they are addressing, and that’s why, presumably, Congress gave 

them the power, and not the courts, the power to implement the 

statutes at issue. 

Second, courts always reject any agency action that is inconsistent with the statute, or if it is arbitrary and capricious. That’s, 

again, something that’s been around for a very long time and 

hasn’t changed, didn’t change with Chevron, hasn’t changed today. 

And then, courts uphold agency actions in about two-thirds of the 

cases that come before them, no matter what doctrine they apply. 

There has been study after study of all of these doctrines, and what 

they show is, like, a 2 percent difference in rate of upholding. The 

doctrines are not very important. Now, when Chevron was first decided in 1984, I set forth, in a number of articles and books, my 

reasons why I thought it was sensible and consistent with both the 

administrative procedures and the Constitution. 

I also predicted that it would have a big effect. Well, I was totally wrong in my prediction, time has proven me wrong. Between 

1984 and 2001, it had a fair amount of support in the circuit 

courts. Circuit courts rates of upholding agency action went up during that period of time. Since 2001, there’s very little evidence that 

it’s had any effect in the circuit courts. And there’s never been any 

evidence that it has had any effect on the actual decisions of the 

Supreme Court, as opposed to the way that they phrased their decisions. 

Just to give you an example of the difference between the two. 

Justice Scalia was the strongest proponent of Chevron. He expressed that view in opinion after opinion, and in a famous law review article he wrote in Duke Law Journal. He also is the Justice 

who votes least frequently to uphold agency actions. By contrast, 

Justice Breyer has always been a strong critic of Chevron, and he’s 

the Justice who votes most frequently to uphold agency actions. 

So, there really is no evidence today that Chevron is having any 

of the effects that some people attribute to it, and very little evidence that it ever had those effects in terms of actual Supreme 

Court opinions. The Supreme Court has the power to change its 

doctrine; it changes its doctrine all the time. It also has the discretion to apply its doctrines in different ways in different cases and 

to tailor the doctrines to the facts of the cases. And that’s what 

they are doing. And the evidence is, as I indicated in an article that 

I included as an appendix to my testimony, that the degree of deference is going down. It has gone down over the last several years. 
57 

*Note: Supplemental material submitted with this statement is not printed in this hearing 

record but is on file with the Subcommittee, and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104665 

So there’s really no reason for concern at all. I can see absolutely 

no reason why you’d want to take legislative action in this area. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierce follows:]* 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Professor Hammond. 

TESTIMONY OF EMILY HAMMOND, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE GEORGE 

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Ms. HAMMOND. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Johnson, Ranking Committee Member Conyers, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. 

We ask a great deal of courts when they review agencies: They 

police jurisdictional boundaries; they guard against serious errors; 

they incentivize agencies to engage in legitimizing behaviors, like 

promoting participation, deliberation and transparency. Now, these 

things could be achieved with de novo review, but there are important reasons for giving deference to the agencies. Agencies have experience with the statutes that they administer. Relative to the 

courts, agencies have superior expertise, particularly with respect 

to complex scientific and technical matters. And deference is an exercise in judicial self-restraint. By deferring to agencies’ reasonable 

explanations, rather than substituting their own judgments, the 

unelected courts can avoid injecting their own policy preferences 

into judicial review. Judicial review attempts to balance all of these 

competing considerations. 

Now, the topic of this hearing is Chevron, but I want to emphasize the empirical research that suggests that the court applies 

Chevron to less than half of the agency interpretations that are 

Chevron-eligible. There is a whole spectrum of deference regimes 

that are tailored to the variety of agency actions as particular circumstance warrant. Those approaches should be viewed together as 

part of a system. Deference is also not a rubber stamp. Under hard 

look review, for example, agencies must provide reasoned explanations for their interpretive choices or policy discretion. In other 

words, they must earn their deference. 

By the way, this requirement of reason giving helps alleviate 

constitutional concerns about the administrative state. There are 

also times when deference is not warranted at all. For example, an 

agency cannot use a limiting interpretation to cure a statute that 

is defective on non delegation grounds. There are also a few very 

unusual cases in which the court has determined that Congress did 

not intend the relevant agency to exercise interpretive authority; 

FDA v. Brown & Williamson, and King v. Burwell are examples. 

Finally, I want to contextualize this system of deference with the 

matter of remedies in administrative law. 

The deference regimes work together with the remedies. For example, if courts find an agency action is unlawful, they also assess 

the particular circumstances to decide whether to remand with or 

without vacating the agency’s action. 

The point here is, yes, the system is imperfect, but attempts to 

legislate a fix to a particular deference doctrine are not likely to 

be effective. The better approach is to craft agencies statutory mandates with particularity to either expand or cabin agency discretion 

in a first instance, as this institution sees fit. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hammond follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Professor Beermann. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK M. BEERMANN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND 

HARRY ELWOOD WARREN SCHOLAR, BOSTON UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. BEERMANN. Thank you, Chairman Marino and Ranking 

Member Johnson, and the distinguished Members of the Committee. It’s an honor to appear before you to testify about Chevron. 

I’ve been teaching and writing in the administrative law field for 

about 30 years now, and in particular, I have written a couple of 

articles that are highly critical of the Chevron doctrine for included 

in your materials for today’s hearing. 

Now, I had—part of my opening remarks were going to be to repeat some of the criticisms you’ve heard of Chevron, but I apologize, Mr. Johnson, that I couldn’t come up with a metaphor about 

chickens or foxes, but I think it would be beating a dead horse 

somewhat. So I’m going to refrain from using part of my time for 

that. 

And I want to say that one of the things that we’ve seen over 

the last couple of terms of the Supreme Court is some sense there 

that more of the Justices are starting to feel uncomfortable with 

the Chevron doctrine, but I really think it’s overreading them to 

say that the Chevron doctrine is about to be thrown out. That’s 

been going on since the beginning of the Chevron doctrine. There’s 

always been this disagreement. More than once, Justice Scalia, 

may he rest in peace, complained that some decision had just eviscerated Chevron, but yet, Chevron limped along, sometimes resulting in extreme deference to agencies and always creating confusion 

and uncertainty. 

And I think that one of the effects we need to think about is the 

fact that it encourages agencies to be more adventurous in their 

statutory interpretations so that regardless of what the result is 

going to be at the Court, the agencies can feel they can go farther 

away from Congress’ expressed intent when they are interpreting 

a statute. 

Now, substance aside, in my opinion, Chevron has failed as a 

matter of legal craft. In the sense that, remember, it’s a decision 

procedure, a framework for decision. It’s not a substantive rule 

itself. And, yet, there’s so much uncertainty about how it applies 

that it’s really failed as a decision procedure. 

There’s a big issue about how it relates to the arbitrary capricious and abuse of discretion otherwise not in accordance with law 

standard that governs under the Administrative Procedure Act. Are 

Chevron decisions about policy or about statutory interpretation? 

There’s one line of cases that says that Pierce questions of statutory interpretation are for the courts, which throws into doubt 

what Chevron is actually about. And I don’t think anyone favors 

giving the sort of extreme deference outlines in Chevron step 2 to 

agency policy decisions. Rather, what we want is for a careful consideration of whether the agency examined the relevant factors, 

employed the correct legal standard, applied its expertise when 

making its decisions. 
74 

And many of the decisions reviewed under Chevron turned out 

to be really policy decisions, not statutory interpretation decisions. 

So what I want to do now is look forward to the idea of a possible 

statutory reform, and I spelled this out in my complete testimony 

before you, a proposal that I think will reorient agent—judicial review of agency action toward the will of Congress. 

And the text, as I spelled it out, is as follows: Unless expressly 

required otherwise by statute, the reviewing court shall decide all 

questions of law de novo with due regard for the views of the agency administering the statute and any other agency involved in the 

decision-making process. And the words ‘‘due regard,’’ they are 

not—obviously, they are not certain. There is some historical precedent for the use of those words in such a statute, and it would 

make clear to the reviewing courts that they have the primary responsibility for ensuring that agencies follow Congress’ instruction, 

while acknowledging that there’s room for deference when deference is warranted. 

So courts, under this standard, would apply the traditional 

Skidmore of consistency, deliberation, thoroughness, and persuasiveness, but they wouldn’t be locked into these standards, because 

there may be other factors that may seem relevant in a particular 

circumstance, and the courts may feel free to do that. Of course, 

this would not come anywhere close to eliminating all uncertainty 

in judicial review. It wouldn’t become mechanical by any means, 

but it would eliminate the epic battles we see today about whether 

and how Chevron applies, and it would head off the sort of extreme 

deference to agencies that, in my opinion, often thwarts serious examination of legislative intent. 

Now, one important point about this. Justice Scalia, in his defense of Chevron, was very concerned about flexibility. He viewed 

one of the virtues of Chevron that it preserved agency flexibility to 

change its views as conditions warranted. 

Now, in his opinion, once Skidmore deference would apply, this 

sort of deference, that the agency would be locked in to whatever 

the Court approved. And I don’t think that’s actually necessary. I 

don’t think this is insurmountable. I think courts could—in my 

opinion, they could, consistent with the rule of law, allow for continued agency flexibility whenever an agency interpretation had 

been accepted under the new due-regards standards, as long as it’s 

clear that the decision was made with substantial deference to the 

agency. 

Now, a bigger question has been raised by some of my copanelists is whether this would actually make a difference. As I point 

out in the articles included with this testimony, at least at the Supreme Court, the cases seem to be more decided along the ideological dividing lines that we are all familiar with at the Court rather 

than on differing views of deference. 

Now, that may be true, but I think it would be less so if the governing standard of review nudged the courts more toward careful 

consideration of legislative intent. Chevron is a distraction from 

what should be the two key issues in judicial review: congressional 

intent and sensible policy. And some sort of reform, whether my 

proposal or something else, ought to reorient the law in that direction. 
75 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beermann follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Professor. 

Each of the witness’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety. We will now move to the Congressmen and 

women’s 5 minutes of questioning, and I will begin by recognizing 

myself. 

Professor Turley, in Federalist 51, James Madison wrote that the 

Constitution’s separation of powers was structured to make ‘‘ambition counteract the ambition,’’ between Congress, the Executive, 

and the Judiciary in order to preserve liberty. How does the Chevron doctrine alter the incentives of the three Federal branches to 

undermine the checks-and-balances system? 

Mr. TURLEY. I think it’s a critical component in terms of the rise 

of this administrative state. And I do think that we have to be honest that the creation of this effective fourth branch was not part 

of the original design. It creates new pathways, new centers, within 

the system. And we have to be at least concerned about how, for 

example, administrative courts have become the dominant forms of 

adjudications in our system. It wasn’t designed for that. And, yet, 

when citizens go to those courts, they find they have fewer rights. 

They find a system that many view is fairly heavily weighted toward agencies. 

And, so, I think if you look at Chevron in that context, you see 

that it’s actually undermining both legislative and judicial functions within the system. And where I disagree with my esteemed 

colleagues, is, I don’t see any cognizable principle at all coming recently out of the Chevron cases. The courts seem to be—to think 

that putting additional layers of ambiguity onto Chevron will create 

clarity, and it hasn’t. In the last case of King v. Burwell, when we 

are looking at, what’s the dividing line? What’s the role of courts? 

The Court says, well, this is a question of deep economic and political significance, and seems to avoid the Chevron analysis. That’s 

no better than Chevron, itself. We have this confusion in this area 

that is very, very dangerous in terms of legislative authority, in 

terms of judicial authority. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Professor Shepherd, Dr. Shepherd, one of the great oddities in 

modern jurisprudence is that the courts have never really explained how Chevron deference is consistent with the APA, which 

prescribes a standard of judicial review that seems to preclude deference to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes, but honors 

still—your written testimony suggests that the legislative history of 

the APA demonstrates that Congress, in 1946, actually refused to 

adopt a deferential standard of review similar to Chevron’s. Can 

you explain that in more detail, please? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Yes. What is referred to in my written testimony, 

the majority—there was an attorney general’s committee on administrative law that produced two reports: One was the majority report, which was more in tune with the New Deal liberals; and the 

minority report, which was more conservative. The majority report 

proposed an approach like Chevron. It suggested that that might 

be a good idea. It was proposing that to the courts. However, the 

statute that eventually became law, the APA, did not include that 

proposal. So that was rejected. The APA was the compromise, and 

the compromise that ended up had some things for conservatives, 
102 

and some things for liberals, and the compromise did not include 

that Chevron approach. 

Now, the question of how did Chevron possibly occur given that 

the APA is very clear that there should be no deference on the 

issues of law? Time passes. I don’t know. It’s a puzzle. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Professor Duffy, how can it be that in all these years since Chevron, the courts have never grappled with this legislative history of 

the APA that shows how Chevron is flatly inconsistent with the 

specific legislative compromise reached in the APA? 

Mr. DUFFY. Well, I agree that it is a mystery. Indeed, I think 

that my colleague, Professor Hammond, said that this doctrine of 

Chevron is a model of judicial self-restraint. And, really, I think it’s 

quite the opposite. Because there was a specific statute that governs judicial review. And not only did the Court go against that, 

go against the history, but it didn’t even attempt to read the statute. It didn’t even engage in the statute, and it still hasn’t engaged 

in the statute. Indeed, some of the oddities is that Justice Scalia, 

at times, even in his writing, and recently in a judicial opinion, recognized that the Chevron doctrine seem to be completely inconsistent with the APA. So it is a mystery. 

Now, I think that creates the confusion, too, that you’ve got one 

set of principles, like Chevron with its two steps, and then you’ve 

got the APA, and that those two things keep passing in the night. 

So I think that is unfortunate. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. My time has expired. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

On occasion, Congress passes broad and open-ended laws leaving 

it to Federal agencies to fill the gaps of delegated authority 

through regulation. This has been the case since the times, 1790’s 

that you cited, Professor Turley. 

Do you believe that the level of public safety regulation in 1790 

is appropriate—is an appropriate benchmark to compare today’s 

administrative process to? 

Mr. TURLEY. That’s a valid point. There’s no question that the 

Federal Government has changed, and this is a new reality. I don’t 

believe that that warrants the type of change that has been 

brought forth in Chevron. In fact, back in that day, the Framers 

were concerned with what was called the royal prerogative that 

James I, talked about, where he said that, really, passing legislation is just the beginning of the process, and that he uses his own 

logic to improve it. And the Framers rejected that. And I think 

Chevron creates a sort of an agency prerogative, where agencies 

treat legislation as just the start of the legislative process. I think 

that’s dangerous for legislative authority. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you think that the legislature, then, 

should draft more specific legislation? Is that the solution rather 

than judicial scrutiny? Can we apportion some of the blame that 

we are assessing to the judicial branch through the legislative 

branch in terms of its inability to formulate a strict, all-encompassing, legislation that needs no rulemaking? 
103 

Mr. TURLEY. I think that’s a very valid point, again. But I do 

want to differ in one sense. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it practical? Is that practical, though—— 

Mr. TURLEY. I believe it is practical in the sense that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. In this Congress? 

Mr. TURLEY.—I think obviously agencies are going to have interpretive roles. There’s application to laws that are going to deal with 

questions that this body cannot answer. What I think is dangerous 

about Chevron is the assumption that there’s an applied delegation 

of Congress to have agencies perform this legislative role. That’s 

what I reject. I think that’s a very dangerous presumption to make, 

because it robs this institution of a very important role. Congress 

is so vital to that tripartite system, because it’s in this body where 

factional disputes results in majoritarian compromise, at least 

ideally they do. But this is where that magic is supposed to happen. If you shift the center of gravity over to agencies performing 

a legislative role away from you, that doesn’t have the same impact 

politically the Framers wanted. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Professor Hammond, what is your response to Professor Turley’s 

remarks? 

Ms. HAMMOND. Well, first of all, I’d like to say about this idea 

of implicit delegation of interpretive authority, the courts themselves recognize that that is a fiction. The courts have adjusted the 

deference doctrines and the standard of review to the fact of broad 

delegations of authority. So, for example, while the nondelegation 

doctrine is a very easy test to pass, agencies are required to provide reasons for what they do. There is no presumption of regularity in the same way that a court reviewing a legislative enactment would provide. And so when courts are reviewing agencies, by 

asking the agencies to explain themselves, not rubber stamping 

what they do, courts are actually fulfilling a constitutional role 

themselves, and policing the boundaries of what agencies are doing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Professor Beermann, as a general matter, do you endorse enhanced judicial review when it comes to deregulatory actions? 

Mr. BEERMANN. Well, you see, that’s a great—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes or no? 

Mr. BEERMANN. Yes. And I think that raises a great point about 

the origins of Chevron, because Chevron was a decision in a period 

of deregulatory government action. And it was originally the proponents of Chevron were the people favoring less regulation, and 

the opponents of Chevron where people were saying bring more 

regulation. It was viewed that what was going to happen under 

Chevron was it was going to let the agencies get away with more 

deregulation, contrary to what Congress had said in the statutes. 

And I think that’s an important point. To me, I am just completely 

neutral on what the substance of the Congress’ output is. To me, 

the appropriate focus for judicial review should be on what Congress wanted the agency to do. And I think, too often, the Chevron 

doctrine allows for the courts to ignore what Congress wanted the 

agencies to do, regardless of whether it’s regulatory or deregulatory. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. My time is up. Thank you. 
104 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Congressman Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Turley, good to see you again. 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. I’m going to address this to you, and as we go up and 

down the dais, I have no doubt that many of the questions will be 

similar to this. But earlier today, we had a lengthy hearing in 

which DACA executive action that has not been stopped, but clearly, is not a court decision, and the Affordable Care Act, where 

there’s been multiple decisions, so I’m going to focus on the Affordable Care Act for this afternoon. 

In that hearing, we seem to hear, essentially, we commend the 

court led by Chief Justice Roberts, in ignoring a few words in the 

Act and looking at the meaning. And to a certain extent, that’s 

what we’re talking about this afternoon, that Chevron is, in fact, 

ignore the words, focus on the meaning. Would you say that’s a fair 

recognition of what, if you will, the doctrine asks the Court to do, 

or the Court, under that doctrine, asks itself to do? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, I would certainly agree to the extent that I 

believe that Chevron gives license for analysis that ignores the 

text. In fact, Chevron itself ignores the text of the APA, which is 

section 706. This body actually did a good job in saying, this is the 

function of the Court. If you read section 706, it makes abundant 

sense, and the Court simply ignored that language, and I think 

it’s—— 

Mr. ISSA. And that’s where my question leads. Thank you, Professor. You’ve done it again. You’ve anticipated. 

In this body, in future legislation, limiting the Court by deciding 

that what is in a particular law is all that there is, would use similar language to the Affordable Care Act. We would say, you know, 

if there’s any ambiguity, come back to us, no extension beyond explicitly those granted shall be there. 

The words would probably not be as simplistic and profound as 

the Constitution, where we’ve been arguing over what the State 

has and what the Federal Government has for years, but it would 

be similar. You know, Federal Government only gets such powers 

as are explicitly given to it, all the rest belongs to the States or the 

people. 

If we cannot use the language of the Affordable Care Act to make 

it clear that we don’t want limitations, unless, of course, we want 

them, which is what had happened in the first Affordable Care Act 

portion, how do we structure language as the body, the only body 

that can make law? How do we structure language to limit the excesses, erroneous conduct, or outright deliberative abuse of laws 

that allow for a regulatory creation? 

Mr. TURLEY. It’s an excellent question. What I suggest in my testimony is that we may want to consider, both in terms of amending 

the APA to deal with the issuance of judicial review, but also the 

inclusion of what would effectively be a Chevron provision in laws 

that make it clear that this body is not delegating authority over 

issues like legal interpretation, certainly, not when it comes—— 
105 

Mr. ISSA. But isn’t that what was in the Affordable Care Act, 

that, in fact, the Court ignored by finding ambiguity and, thus, you 

know, applying the meaning? I mean, by the way, I’m one of those 

people that understands that the Republicans who voted against it 

knew what they didn’t want, and the Democrats wanted the government to pay for it, make happen, and so on. I mean, I think 

Chief Justice Roberts, in a sense, hit one thing right in that case. 

He did order a solution that allowed the people who voted for that 

Act to get what they wanted, not what they wrote, but what they 

wanted. 

So I sort of reiterate, if it didn’t work there, what language 

would you say would be unambiguous enough to keep lifetime appointments from saying, we see it, but we don’t read it. And I’ll follow up, because my time is running out. But the second half of the 

question is, wouldn’t the alternative of expressly having all regulations expire, not just all law, but all regulations expire within a period of time; in other words, can’t we make an act and all future 

acts that say, you know, you may produce regulations, but those 

regulations have to be codified, otherwise, they’re only good for the 

5 years, or until the reauthorization of the act? Isn’t, ultimately, a 

time limit on regulations a better solution than, in fact, trying to 

say, you won’t go there when, in fact, there’s a record that going 

there doesn’t have a penalty sometimes? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, I clearly disagree with aspects of the ACA ruling by the Supreme Court. We agree on that. I do think that you 

have the authority to do precisely that. I also thought that you 

have authority under congressional approval statute along the lines 

of the REINS Act. All of that, I think, is within the power of Congress. 

I think what they have to do is, this body has to be aggressive 

in trying to get back this authority. The Court has made a colossal 

mess of this area, particularly on Chevron. I don’t know anyone 

that would think that Chevron, at this point, that we have an absolute certainty on this—behind this table of what Chevron even 

means anymore, except that it insulates agencies from effective review. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate—I 

would have liked to have heard from all the witnesses, but I understand the limited time, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Washington, Congresswoman DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you for 

being here today. 

Professor Hammond, I wanted to ask if you are familiar with the 

U.S. Department of Education’s gainful employment rule? 

Ms. HAMMOND. I’m not. 

Ms. DELBENE. So the gainful employment rule is an attempt to— 

has been attempted to find gainful employment so that taxpayerfunded financial aid for career education programs is actually going 

to students who are really being trained for real careers, and attempt to deal with some of the challenges that they’ve seen, especially with for-profit colleges. I bring that up, because when the Department of Education first put the rule in place, it was challenged 

and struck down. But in that case, the judge did uphold the De-
106 

partment of Education’s authority to issue regulations enforcing 

the gainful employment requirement in the relevant statute. 

The judge commented that, ‘‘The Department had gone looking 

for rats in rat holes as the statute empowers it to do.’’ The Department of Education went back to the drawing board, and after notice and comment, put forward a revised rule, and that rule was 

upheld in court just last week. Now, it seems—it seems that this 

is a pretty good example of the process working well, where a problem impacting families was identified, the relevant agency acted 

within the authority that Congress granted it, and through a transparent and accountable process, a solution was formed. So I wondered if you think that we put—do we put this process at stake if 

we start tinkering with the current legal framework by putting together piecemeal legislation? 

Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. That’s a great question. And I have published an article in the Columbia Law Review on this issue of what 

I call serial litigation. So an agency’s action is challenged; it’s remanded; the agency then corrects itself; the action is challenged 

again. And courts very often do reward agencies the second time 

for paying attention. 

Our current deference regimes enable this kind of dialogue. 

When courts explain in a first instance what the agency has done 

wrong, but remands to the agency for a chance to fix it, this furthers the responsiveness of our administrative state. It’s acting 

within the bounds that the courts have reiterated, and then when 

it does that, when an agency does that, deference the next time 

around is appropriate. 

Ms. DELBENE. So do you think that it’s possible that legislation 

could actually create new or, you know, worse, in some cases, legal 

uncertainties in cases where the agency rulemaking actually seeks 

to, and clarify in this case, an ambiguous part of the law that Congress chose not to define? 

Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. If we ask courts to review de novo, we lose 

that ability to really bring in the expertise of the agencies and the 

responsiveness in a dialogic kind of way with—between the agencies and the courts. 

Ms. DELBENE. And in—so if we, in Congress, want to be crystal 

clear and preempt agency rulemaking on a particular point in legislation, obviously, we can do that through careful and considered 

drafting ourselves? Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. HAMMOND. That’s right. 

Ms. DELBENE. Professor Pierce, I wondered if you had a comment on this, on the rulemaking example I brought up, and also 

on whether you think legislation can be helpful or would create 

more uncertainty? 

Mr. PIERCE. I actually think, over time, it would have no effect 

at all. And this goes back to where I was totally wrong on Chevron. 

I looked at Chevron and said, I thought it made sense. Maybe I’m 

right, maybe I’m wrong. I wrote a bunch of books and articles 

about how good it was and then about how much is changing. It 

hasn’t. And I don’t think—change isn’t tinkering in language. You 

know, they’re always going to be deferring. They have to defer. 

They don’t know much about nuclear energy. They don’t know 

much about water pollution. Agencies know much more about it. So 
107 

there’s always going to be a degree of deference, and there’s always 

going to be, on the other side of it, a tendency to check to make 

sure they only do things that they can explain pretty well, and that 

they only do things that are within statutory boundaries. And 

that’s the nature of the beast. And you could describe it 100 different ways, and it’s not going to change what the courts actually 

do. 

I will—I have to say that one of the problems—going back to an 

earlier exchange, one of the problems, there are horribly drafted 

bills. 

The Chief Justice added a paragraph in his opinion in King v. 

Burwell, in which he alluded to the process through which that legislation became law. And it was a process that led to a mess that 

where it’s very difficult to reconcile the purposes of one part with 

the language of another part. And the clean air—power plant has 

a bigger problem that in 1990, the House put one provision in section 111, and the Senate put another provision. They are totally inconsistent, and then both were enacted. 

Ms. DELBENE. My time has expired. 

Mr. PIERCE. So the courts have to decide which of the things that 

the Congress said to take seriously, because one says yes, and the 

other says no. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MARINO. The votes have been called. We are going to try to 

get the other two gentlemen in before, because I don’t want you to 

have to wait here for a half hour or so. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So I’ve only been in Congress for the last 15 months, but in that 

period of time, I’ve already been able to have hundreds of conversations with small business owners and farmers and community 

bankers, independent insurance agents across the rural Northeast 

Texas district that I represent that all those conversations end in 

frustration over the endless burden of regulatory agencies and 

rules. Sometimes it relates to ObamaCare; sometimes it relates to 

the EPA regulating puddles in people’s backyards, or trying to tell 

my constituents what kind of light bulbs they have to buy, and this 

frustration is really heightened, because when I came into Congress, I came in as part of a historic majority here in the House, 

and as part of the Congress where we took over the Senate as well, 

and I think my constituents expected things to change, hoped that 

Republicans would put a stop to a run-away administrative state 

in this country. But admittedly, very little has changed. And we 

can talk about executive overreach, but I’m willing to admit and acknowledge that part of the problem here is legislative underreach, 

and with respect to the Chevron doctrine and other things. 

So I’m certainly grateful that we’re having this hearing today. 

We have an opportunity to talk about the possibility of solutions 

to this pervasive problem, and so I want to start with you, Professor Turley, because in your written testimony you said that— 

and I’ll quote you here, ‘‘Fear that the growth of Federal agencies 

is reaching a critical mass within our system, a point where rapid 

exponential and irreversible expansion will occur.’’ 
108 

So, in your opinion, first, let me ask you, what are the greatest 

drivers of this agency expansion? And where does Chevron fall on 

that list? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, thank you very much for that question. I 

think that the danger itself is existential for the system. I happen 

to agree with many things that agencies do. But for us to pretend 

this isn’t a new system with new dimensions of power and pathways is to ignore reality. Part of the frustration that your citizens 

have is they sense correctly that the center of gravity of the government has shifted away from them, that they are more the subject of government power than the source of government power. 

And I do think that that’s a legitimate concern, and I think Chevron is part of it. If you want to deal with the independence of agencies, you have to deal with the insulation of agency decisions that 

is exposed to Chevron. But Chevron also captures this idea that the 

administrative state is a new reality. When we hear some of my 

colleagues talk, and they say, well, we have to assist the administrative state. And that’s exactly what it is. It’s becoming a state 

with legislative and judicial and executive powers combined. And 

I think that would horrify the Framers. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So I’m going to ask you to speculate here. Let’s 

say that Congress were to pass legislation overturning—essentially, 

overturning Chevron and a President, not necessarily this President, were to sign that into law, in your estimation, how far would 

that go in addressing this vast agency expansion that we’re talking 

about? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, it would not take—it would not dismantle the 

administrative state. And I think we all have to accept that there’s 

going to be a role of the Federal agencies. This is part of this large 

government that we have. But it’s a very important first step. I 

think the court should look at things like the REINS Act and other 

ways to force agency decisions to come back before Congress. But 

the most important thing about attacking Chevron is to tell courts 

that you are wrong. You can’t just imply that we are delegating 

legislative authority to the agencies every time you have ambiguity, even on legal questions. And you certainly can’t do that on 

a question of jurisdiction. That’s why the City of Arlington case 

really is so chilling for me, is that we always assume that would 

be the rubicon, at least agencies wouldn’t get deference on defining 

their own jurisdiction. And I think Congress needs to attack that 

very aggressively. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you. 

Professor Shepherd, I want to give you an opportunity to talk 

about an issue that I noticed from your testimony. One of the oddities here in modern jurisprudence is the fact that courts have never 

really explained why the Chevron deference is consistent with the 

APA, which prescribes a standard of judicial review that seems to 

preclude deference to agency interpretation of statutes. Your written testimony suggests that the legislative history of the APA demonstrates that Congress, in fact, actually refused to adopt the deferential standard of review similar to Chevron. And I want to give 

you an opportunity to explain that. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I’ve already mentioned that briefly, that that’s 

exactly what happened. There was a proposal to—from an attorney 
109 

general’s committee to allow Chevron-style deference, and that proposal did not find its way into the ultimate compromise. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, thank you. 

My time has expired. I did want to—Professor Duffy, I appreciate 

your comments regarding a de novo standard, and I will tell you 

that I agree with you. 

And I’ll yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses for 

what has been a very thoughtful discussion. 

Professor Turley, is it my understanding that one of your concerns with the Chevron doctrine is that the Court seems to be coming to the conclusion that the ambiguity in the statute effectively 

means that Congress is delegating authority to the administrative 

agencies? Is that right? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, there’s an assumption of implied delegation 

that underlies many of these cases that I think is misplaced. It 

gives agencies, in my view, far much—too much insulation from review under the Chevron doctrine. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And would you agree there’s been an active discussion around the rise of the regulatory state that perhaps even dates 

back to Justice Scalia’s days as a university professor connected to 

an article that he wrote, I think it was in 1981? 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so that, essentially, means that for at least 

35-plus years, there’s been this concern that an administrative 

state, a fourth branch of government, has arisen, and the linchpin 

for it is the ambiguity that continues to exist coming out of bills 

passed by this House and that Senate, correct? 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes. I would qualify it in this one respect. Because 

I do agree with an earlier statement made that there are statutes 

that have gone to the courts that I don’t consider to be ambiguous, 

that the interpretation has been yielded to Federal agencies, in my 

view, improperly by the courts. And I think that undermines both 

the judicial branch and the legislative branch. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But would you agree that it certainly is the case 

in many instances, statutes that are being passed by this Congress 

remain broadly vague in ways that allow for, perhaps, judicial overreach? 

Mr. TURLEY. Oh, I think that’s certainly the case in many statutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so at a certain point, don’t you think it’s reasonable for the courts to assume not just that there’s implied delegation, but that the absence of a mechanical precise focus by this 

Congress over decades, notwithstanding the active debate and the 

view by many that there’s been judicial overreach, to continue to 

send out statutes that are vague? At a certain point, it does seem 

to me, perhaps, that some could reasonably conclude that Congress 

is implying, we don’t have the expertise; we don’t have the time; 

we don’t have the tolerance to enact these statutes in a more precise fashion? 
110 

Mr. TURLEY. I think that’s an excellent point. I would qualify it 

in two respects where we may disagree. One is that part of the 

problem of the Chevron doctrine is that the Court is putting these 

layers of ambiguity on Chevron to the point that you have the deference, but the rationales change. And I think that’s dangerous. 

Second, I don’t think Congress does imply delegation for legislative actions. I think that there are lots of reasons why there’s ambiguities, but nobody here is suggesting that agencies shouldn’t interpret. No one is suggesting that they shouldn’t get a—that the 

Court should not defer to some extent. The question is the extent. 

And it certainly should not extend to legal reasoning or jurisdictional questions, some of the reach we’ve seen with Chevron. But 

agencies are going to be given a certain amount of weight. That 

was what happened under Skidmore. Chevron solved a problem 

that didn’t exist in my view, and it’s made it a lot worse. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, you, in terms of, sort of, the original intentions of the Founders and thinking about, sort of, how Congress 

was constructed and the notion that every Member of Congress 

would be a generalist, and then there would be a subset of specialists who would work through the Committee process. Is that a reasonable definition of how Congress, at least, has evolved and been 

thought of in terms of the Framers’ intentions? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, I think you’re right about being generalists, 

but I would caution that the Framers believed that the structure 

of the system would actually help direct compromise, would help 

diffuse divisions by reaching majoritarian compromise. What has 

happened is that we’ve created this whole new bureaucracy of the 

administrative state which is answering those questions that are 

supposed to be answered here. Whether it’s convenient or not, I 

think it has pretty dire consequences for our political system. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you for that. And I would say that I do 

think Professor Pierce’s observation about the expertise necessary 

in an increasingly complex society that it’s possessed, in some regard—and, certainly, I have great respect for Chairman Marino 

and others on this panel, got certain subset of expertise, particularly in law enforcement, but that in some of these other areas, 

whether it involves the energy sector, food, safety, toxic water, that 

there is a degree of administrative expertise that exists most specifically at these agencies, and that in some sense, it is reasonable 

for there to be some understanding of deference given to them. 

And I thank you, all, for your thoughts. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

This concludes today’s hearing. And thanks to all our witnesses 

for attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have at least 5 legislative 

days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned, and we have to run to vote. 

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(111) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
112 

Response to Questions for the Record from Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. 

Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School 
113 
114 

f 
115 

Response to Questions for the Record from Emily Hammond, Associate 

Dean for Public Engagement & Professor of Law, The George Washington 

University Law School 
116 

Æ