Law Commons^™

Democracy, Chevron Deference, And Major Questions Anti-Deference, Richard W. Murphy

Georgia Law Review

In 1984, the Supreme Court in its Chevron opinion invoked democratic values to help justify holding that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of a statute that it administers. In 2022, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court invoked democratic values to help justify the major questions doctrine (MQD), which requires clear congressional authorization for agency claims of major regulatory power. Democracy, it seems, requires deference and anti-deference for agency statutory interpretations.

Or maybe not. This Article submits that the democracy talk of Chevron and West Virginia is implausible, misleading, and may have caused the law to evolve …

Judicial Threats To Olmstead And The Americans With Disabilities Act, Jean Mangan, Andrea L. Dennis

Scholarly Works

The authors examine the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v L.C. ex rel. Zimring and related Supreme Court rulings that could raise questions about the Americans With Disabilities Act's guarantee of care in integrated settings and about which governmental entity's interpretation should be respected when deciding whether a state has met its integration obligation. After reviewing statutes, administrative regulations, and judicial decisions, the authors conclude that Olmstead's integration mandate will likely stand, but actions should be taken to codify the rule in federal and state statutes so that governmental agencies will continue to have the authority to ensure compliance …

Chevron Abroad, Kent H. Barnett, Lindsey Vinson

Scholarly Works

This Article presents our comparative findings of how courts in five other countries review agency statutory interpretation. These comparisons permit us to understand and participate better in current debates about the increasingly controversial Chevron doctrine in American law, whereby courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes that an agency administers. Those debates concern, among other things, Chevron 's purported inevitability, functioning and normative propriety. Our inquiry into judicial review in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia provides useful and unexpected findings. Chevron, contrary to some scholars' views, is not inevitable because only one of these countries has …