In 1989, the late Justice Antonin Scalia authored one of the seminal opinions on deference to administrative agencies. In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), he famously reaffirmed a long-standing rule of administrative deference dating back to Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945): When the meaning of an administrative regulation is in doubt, the agency’s interpretation of the regulation is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Deference will be given even to informal interpretations that are not adopted through rulemaking or formal adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). By 2011, however, Justice Scalia had made an about-face: “[W]hile I have in the past uncritically accepted [the Auer] rule, I have become increasingly doubtful of its validity.” Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 564 U.S. 50, 68 (2011) (Scalia, J., concurring).

Justice Scalia’s doubts seem to have gained traction with the conservative Justices on the court. On March 27, 2019, the court heard argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, Case No. 18-15, a case that asks if the court should overrule Auer and Seminole Rock.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]