Chevron Deference in the States: Lessons from Three States

Authors

Carrie Townsend Ingram

First Page

1

Last Page

31

Abstract

The appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States has left many wondering if a change to the Chevron doctrine is impending. Justice Gorsuch’s colleague on the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, shares similar views on Chevron. This article will compare the federal rule to three different states: Indiana, Delaware, and Arizona. Each state has taken a different path in determining that the judiciary should not give deference to an agency’s interpretation of the statutes that it is charged with enforcing. Delaware has affirmatively declared that the Chevron doctrine is not applicable in its state. A recent Indiana case held that the judiciary interprets conclusions of law de novo and does not give deference to the administrative tribunal’s interpretation of the law. The Arizona judiciary had adopted a standard that was similar to Chevron; however, the recent passage of legislation should make a change to the way the judiciary will interpret statutes. After reviewing the three states’ standards, this article will consider the views of both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas on whether Chevron violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The article will close by considering whether the U.S. Supreme Court or federal executive branch agencies could learn lessons from the states.

Recommended Citation

Carrie Townsend Ingram, Chevron Deference in the States: Lessons from Three States, 38 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary 1 (2018)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol38/iss2/1