Cite as: 529 U. S. 576 (2000)
Breyer, J., dissenting
deference is inapplicable—e. g., where one has doubt that Congress actually intended to delegate interpretive authority to the agency (an "ambiguity" that Chevron does not presumptively leave to agency resolution)—I believe that Skidmore nonetheless retains legal vitality. If statutes are to serve the human purposes that called them into being, courts will have to continue to pay particular attention in appropriate cases to the experience-based views of expert agencies.
I agree with Justice Stevens that, when "thoroughly considered and consistently observed," an agency's views, particularly in a rather technical case such as this one, "meri[t] our respect." Ante, at 595 (dissenting opinion). And, of course, I also agree with Justice Stevens that, for the reasons he sets forth, ante, at 592-594, the Labor Department's position in this matter is eminently reasonable, hence persuasive, whether one views that decision through Chevron's lens, through Skidmore's, or through both.
597
Page: Index Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Last modified: October 4, 2007