Chenery II Case III (listed as II in book): SC relies on agency expertise and we, the ct, cannot second guess that; based on accumulated experience; NOW 2nd issue: choice for means of making law if you are an agency - if formal rulemaking required: too costly for agency - if notice and comment and hard look required, agency may say years of remands and hooey - so agency says that we will bypass informal rulemaking and just rely on recalls Ct says: we prefer rulemaking to adjudication (at general level) b/c 1) more parties participating, therefore better decisions instead of A v. B 2) greater staff expertise 3) rulemaking is prospective (law for the future), whereas adjudication is retrospective (i.e. past conduct) KEY point of Chenery: do NOT require rulemaking: leave choice of rulemaking or adjudication to informed discretion of agency Depending on situation, agency may prefer one over the other Dissent: upholding SEC ruling b/c of agency expertise YET SEC has no expertise on the problem at hand!