Opinion ID: 1269179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deference to Agency Interpretation of Statutes and Regulations

Text: In reviewing a federal agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers, a reviewing court must first ask whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Id. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. However, if Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue and the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, then the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. If the agency's construction is a permissible one, even if it is not the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding, then the court must defer to the agency's interpretation. Id. at 843 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 2778. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency. Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. When interpreting an agency regulation, a court should also defer to the agency's interpretation of the regulation unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997). However, deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000). If the language of the regulation is clear, then [t]o defer to the agency's position would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create a de facto new regulation. Id.