Last year Justice Scalia came to speak at the University of Chicago. During his speech, the main content of which escapes me at the moment, Justice Scalia stated that no matter what Justice Stevens said Chevron meant, he (Justice Scalia) knew better. Stevens, for what it's worth, actually authored Chevron, so we might assume that would have some superior interpretive position - sadly not. Chevron, incidentally, is available at 467 US 837 (1984).
The disagreement Scalia referred to goes to the theoretical underpinnings of Chevron (Chevron, in turn, deals with judicial review of administrative interpretations of law - and essentially says that courts should accept an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term that the agency administers - I know, it doesn't sound watershed, but it is).
I quote now a speech Justice Scalia delivered. First, in response to the "expertise" rationale offered by those who urge judicial deference Scalia remarks:
"The cases, old and new, that accept administrative interpretations, often refer to the 'expertise' of the agencies in question, their intense familiarity with the history and purposes of the legislation at issue, their practical knowledge of what will best effectuate those purposes. In other words, they are more likely than the courts to reach the correct result. That is, if true, a good practical reason for accepting the agency's views, but hardly a valid theoretical justification for doing so. If I had been sitting on the Supreme Court when Learned Hand was still alive, it would similarly have been, as a practical matter, desirable for me to accept his views in all of his cases under review, on the basis that he is a lot wiser than I, and more likely to get it right. But that would hardly have been theoretically valid. Even if Hand would have been de facto superior, I would have been ex officio so. So also with judicial acceptance of the agencies' views. If it is, as we have always believed, the constitutional duty of the courts to say what the law is, we must search for something beyond relative competence as a basis for ignoring that principle when agency action is at issue."
Scalia continues in his search for a theoretical basis for Chevron:
"If the Chevron rule is not a 100% accurate estimation of modern congressional intent, the prior case-by-case evaluation was not so either -- and was becoming less and less so, as the sheer volume of modern dockets made it less and less possible for the Supreme Court to police diverse application of an ineffable rule. And to tell the truth, the quest for the "genuine" legislative intent is probably a wild-goose chase anyway. In the vast majority of cases I expect that Congress neither (1) intended a single result, nor (2) meant to confer discretion upon the agency, but rather (3) didn't think about the matter at all. If I am correct in that, then any rule adopted in this field represents merely a fictional, presumed intent, and operates principally as a background rule of law against which Congress can legislate.
"If that is the principal function to be served, Chevron is unquestionably better than what preceded it. Congress now knows that the ambiguities it creates, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will be resolved, within the bounds of permissible interpretation, not by the courts but by a particular agency, whose policy biases will ordinarily be known. The legislative process becomes less of a sporting event when those supporting and opposing a particular disposition do not have to gamble upon whether, if they say nothing about it in the statute, the ultimate answer will be provided by the courts or rather by the Department of Labor." See Scalia, Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations of Law, 1989 Duke L J 511.
Essentially, Scalia says that Chevron favors rules (and therefore certainty, clarity, rule of law, etc.) rather than discretion (also rather than constitutionality, separation of powers, expertise, or any other rationale). I think these quotes set up the debate nicely (even if showing my natural predisposition towards Scalia's point of view). What does Stevens think Chevron means? Tune in soon, as Brian highlights some Stevens dissents from post-Chevron cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(473)
-
▼
January
(116)
- A Home for the Imagination: It grew up around the ...
- Car Talk question
- Snopes on Superbowl
- Mr Cranky strikes again
- Strategic deterrence
- Never Say Die, by Michael Kinsley
- General Malaise: Democrats, for the good of the co...
- The Heart of Politics: One Woman, Two Senators and...
- Claremont Review of Books on Volokh
- BBC Apologises As Dyke Quits
- In Shake-Up, Dean Names Gore Ally to Run Campaign
- Chevron's Station
- To ponder on...
- Scalia and Stevens - An introduction
- Up and coming analysis
- Yeahs and Boos on immigration
- Judge Says R. Kelly Must Avoid Jackson
- Trailer watch.
- Cline on Kucinich
- Good Scalia quote
- Clark Contrasts Humble Roots with Yale-Educated Ri...
- With Fanfare and a Grand Parade, Paris Celebrates ...
- Water birthing
- Kazaa sues music industry...
- Alert: Dancing German Monster Thing
- Death penalty responses
- "Xerox"
- "Apple's diplomatic core"
- Adopting law
- Blockbuster rents porn
- Agatha Christie - One published lady.
- Note the email...
- Political compass
- Kobe Bryant racism charge...
- Thomas Kinkade
- Hey, Nobody Noticed!
- Mars rover sending data again
- Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old So...
- California Democrats Face Grim Post-Mortem
- 2 Jewish Leaders Upset After Viewing 'Passion'
- Michael Moore
- Blogging from Atlanta
- Bargaining for Freedom, by Nicholas D. Kristof
- Rehnquist Questioned on Cheney-Scalia Trip
- Dean Plans Return To 'Who I Really Am'
- Chinese Move to Relax Severe Judicial Penalties
- Death penalty thoughts
- The Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator
- Nintendo's Big, Bad Gamble
- Commenting Feature Changed
- More lawsuits filed by RIAA
- Brian was right?!
- Pitzer College: A Bunch of Loons
- Microsoft Compliance Report
- Look before you leap
- Kozinski Quotables
- Imperfect credit markets
- Iowa Caucus Roundup
- 1000 Hits and a Few More Links
- Michael Jackson proves his innocence!
- Efficient contract avoidance
- Kucinich's New Strategy
- Illegal downloading on the rise
- Grover
- An...err... interesting writing competition
- U Chicago Law Clinic Victory
- Trailer Watch
- Michael Moore: 'We're going to have the best chanc...
- Cass-piracy Theories
- Airline Gave Government Information on Passengers
- Cheney Hunting Trip With Scalia Raises Impartialit...
- Rumors of Castro's Death Sweep Miami-Dade -- Again
- What A Day!
- President Bush Uses Recess Appointment for Pickering
- Release Saddam Say Jordan Lawyers
- Carol Moseley Braun Reportedly Dropping Out of Rac...
- Chicago Judges Project
- *The* Ad
- Irony defined:
- Defining corporations...
- The Bush Democrats, by David Brooks
- Jeff Jarvis - Claremont Man
- Carol for President!
- Tournament of Federal Appellate Judges
- The Food Network and Good Eats
- A Great Time-waster!
- Law and Econ at work...
- Public Service Messages
- One approach to free cable...
- A (not THE) Ginsburg in Chicago?
- Blogging Excuse
- Telepathic horses
- Law & Order coloring books!
- The New Republic Endorses Lieberman
- Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper
- Woman Says She Lost Ticket Worth $162 Million
- Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi Joke: Remar...
- Arkansas Executes Mentally Ill Inmate
- Bill Bradley to Back Dean
- 500 Hits and Counting
-
▼
January
(116)
No comments:
Post a Comment