The creation by the judiciary of the doctrine of Chevron deference to administrative agencies’ determinations, followed by the judiciary’s application and supervision of the Chevron deference doctrine in Administrative Law continue. Protection by the judiciary of the evolution of the doctrine also continues as an integral component of the judiciary’s contribution to the central objective of the three coequal branches of government to achieve for the United States a more perfect union. However, synergistic cooperation between the three branches in order to achieve that central objective requires that each branch honor its own constitutional obligation under the United States Constitution to stay within the parameters of its own assigned constitutional role. In this regard, the task of the judiciary to exercise the self-restraint necessary to refrain from encroaching upon the bailiwick of either of the other two branches of government while simultaneously ensuring that both of the other two branches similarly obtrude encroachment is not an easy one. This article is a modest reflection upon the role of Chevron deference, the judiciary’s admirable internal struggle to honor its own assignment without ruction and the selective discussion of Justice Scalia’s dissents in two of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions adjudicating the appropriateness of according Chevron deference to each of two separate federal administrative agencies’ decisions.
Stephen J. Leacock,
Chevron's Legacy, Justice Scalia's Two Enigmatic Dissents, and His Return to the Fold in City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC,
Cath. U. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol64/iss1/8