Permission for the article's appearance in our newsletter has been obtained from the Editor of Administrative Law Notes and from the Federal Bar Association. Over the years, several reasons have been advanced for the Chevron doctrine that courts should defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of a statutewhen the statute itself is ambiguous. Agencies, not courts, are the preferred vehicle for resolving policy conflicts engendered by statutes. Agency officials may have been involved in the drafting of the statute.
Agencies have greater expertise in regulatory areas.
A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, now appears to offer a definitive rationale for the doctrine and a procedural guidepost for the successful utilization of the doctrine by an agency. Justice Scalia notes that the instant case produced both majority and dissenting opinions by the California Supreme Court and that the majority's decision conflicted with an opinion of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. So he finds that the statutory language is ambiguous. It does not matter that the Comptroller is construing a statute that is 100 years old. The fact that the current interpretation was prompted by litigation does not matter.