Which case is most closely associated with deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes?

Which case is most closely associated with deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes?

• A. Chevron v. NRDC (1984)
• B. Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024)
• C. Schenck v. United States (1919)
• D. Buck v. Bell (1927)

Answer: (A)

When a statute is ambiguous, courts often rely on the expertise of the regulatory agency charged with enforcing it. The case that first established this approach in a broad, widely cited way is Chevron v. NRDC from 1984. It sets up a two-step process: first, the court asks whether the statute plainly resolves the issue. If it does, the statute’s clear meaning governs. If the statute is ambiguous, the court defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute, so long as that interpretation is a permissible construction and does not contradict congressional intent. This idea—that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—became known as Chevron deference and has shaped how many regulatory questions are resolved. The other cases mentioned deal with different constitutional topics and are not the standard source of deference to agency interpretations. Schenck v. United States concerns free speech limits during wartime, Buck v. Bell concerns sterilization laws, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo is a later case that addresses related questions in a specific context but does not establish the fundamental principle the way Chevron does.

When a statute is ambiguous, courts often rely on the expertise of the regulatory agency charged with enforcing it. The case that first established this approach in a broad, widely cited way is Chevron v. NRDC from 1984. It sets up a two-step process: first, the court asks whether the statute plainly resolves the issue. If it does, the statute’s clear meaning governs. If the statute is ambiguous, the court defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute, so long as that interpretation is a permissible construction and does not contradict congressional intent. This idea—that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—became known as Chevron deference and has shaped how many regulatory questions are resolved.

The other cases mentioned deal with different constitutional topics and are not the standard source of deference to agency interpretations. Schenck v. United States concerns free speech limits during wartime, Buck v. Bell concerns sterilization laws, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo is a later case that addresses related questions in a specific context but does not establish the fundamental principle the way Chevron does.