- 113 -
entitle the agency implementation to Chevron deference; the
agency must also actually invoke the authority delegated. Id. at
226-227, 237.
The Court clarified Chevron by stating that the delegation
of authority may be either explicit or implicit, and when Chevron
deference applies, a reviewing court is obliged to accept the
agency’s position if Congress has not previously spoken to the
point at issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Id. at 227, 229. Thus, any regulation entitled to Chevron
deference is binding on the courts unless procedurally defective,
arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to
the statute. Id. at 227.
Precedential value alone, however, does not add up to
Chevron entitlement; interpretive rules sometimes may function as
precedents, and they enjoy no Chevron status as a class. Id. at
232. Although not limiting Chevron deference to situations where
notice-and-comment rulemaking or formal adjudications took place,
the Court focused on these attributes and stated they are
significant in determining whether Congress contemplated
administrative action with the effect of law and whether Chevron
deference is appropriate.1 Id. at 230, 231, 233, 234.
1 The Court cites numerous cases where notice-and-comment
rulemaking took place, but only one where it did not, and
Chevron deference was accorded. United States v. Mead Corp., 533
U.S. 218, 230 n.12, 231 n.13 (2001).
Page: Previous 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011