Much scholarly attention focuses on the use or absence of Chevron deference at the Supreme Court.
In other words, the Court's choice to apply Chevron deference, as opposed to a less-deferential doctrine or no deference at all, does not seem to affect the outcome of the case.
This set also permitted us to review all instances in which the circuit courts, having referred to Chevron, reviewed agency interpretations de novo or under the Skidmore deference regime (under which courts defer to an agency's interpretation based on several factors, including the thoroughness of the agency's interpretation and its consistency with prior pronouncements).
Chevron deference, and that deference is reserved for agencies.
such limitation exists and that deference to the Tax Court fits
discussion about whether deference to the Tax Court was superior to de
1863 (2013), the Supreme Court again considered whether an agency's interpretation of a statute pertaining to the scope of its jurisdiction was entitled to Chevron deference.
Ultimately, following an extensive analysis of past decisions, the Court found that the agency's construction of the statute was entitled to Chevron deference.
However, the dissenting opinion took issue with the majority's analysis, opining that before Chevron deference can apply, a court must make an initial determination of whether Congress has delegated authority to the agency to interpret the specific statutory ambiguity at issue.
can be found on either side of the Auer deference question: advocating
with respect to Auer deference tends to be the one that best advances
case, these groups steadfastly resist Auer deference.