The Judicial Perspective in the Administrative State: Reconciling Modern Doctrines of Deference with the Judiciary's Structural Role

By Molot, Jonathan T. | Stanford Law Review, October 2000 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Judicial Perspective in the Administrative State: Reconciling Modern Doctrines of Deference with the Judiciary's Structural Role


Molot, Jonathan T., Stanford Law Review


INTRODUCTION

Lawyers and scholars traditionally have viewed interpretation as a search for the best reading of an ambiguous legal text.(1) More recently, scholars have considered as well interpretation's "instrumental" effects on lawmaking,(2) highlighting the possibility that particular styles of statutory interpretation may have beneficial effects on legislatures by encouraging democratic deliberation, diminishing interest group influence, or inducing legislators to highlight their bargains in a statute's text rather than bury them in legislative history.(3) Moreover, while this scholarship on the broader influence of legal interpretation on lawmaking is relatively new, and empirical evidence of such a "feedback loop" is still somewhat sketchy,(4) the basic intuition that different approaches to interpretation might influence legislative behavior is by no means novel. Half a century ago, Justice Frankfurter observed that "[l]oose judicial reading makes for loose legislative writing."(5)

If scholars of statutory interpretation have thoroughly explored the notion that interpretive styles may influence lawmaking, they have largely, and incorrectly, assumed that judges will be the interpreters.(6) By the time scholars began to consider how judges could improve lawmaking--and to debate whether judges could legitimately adopt an "instrumentalist" approach to statutory interpretation(7)--the judiciary already had relinquished much of its interpretive power to administrative agencies.(8)

This article argues that modern administrative law's reliance on administrative agencies rather than judges to resolve legal ambiguity rests principally on a narrow vision of interpretation and becomes much more difficult to defend when the interpretive enterprise's broader, instrumental effects on lawmaking are taken into account.(9) Moreover, the article posits that judicial influence over legislative behavior is not simply the invention of modern scholars of statutory interpretation, but rather is an important component of our constitutional structure. The article thus identifies an overlooked tension between judicial deference to administrative agencies under modern administrative law and the judiciary's original, influential role in our constitutional design.

In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,(10) the Supreme Court decided to defer to reasonable agency resolutions of statutory ambiguity--and to treat ambiguity as an "implicit delegation" of authority to agencies--largely because the Court believed that agencies were better equipped than judges to resolve interpretive disputes.(11) The Court reasoned that resolving interpretive disputes requires policy judgments and that judges lack the political accountability and subject matter expertise that equip administrators to make these policy judgments.(12) Under Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co.,(13) the Court has likewise deferred to administrators' interpretations of their own regulations.(14) The Court has reasoned that because interpretation of regulations may "entail the exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns,"(15) it makes sense to transfer interpretive authority to administrators who are politically accountable(16) and sufficiently expert to make the relevant political choices with a sophisticated understanding of underlying policy considerations.(17) In both lines of cases, the Court has limited judges to determining whether a law is ambiguous and, if so, ensuring that the agency interpretation is reasonable.(18)

But if judicial deference to agency interpretations leads to more "legitimate" or "sensible" resolutions of interpretive disputes, these benefits do not come without a cost to our constitutional framework. Even if Chevron and Seminole Rock produce "better" results in particular cases, together they weaken judicial authority in a way that fundamentally alters the relationship between lawmaking and law interpretation in our constitutional framework.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Judicial Perspective in the Administrative State: Reconciling Modern Doctrines of Deference with the Judiciary's Structural Role
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?