Not sure if this is the right place to pose this question, but what is going to happen to the CFR now that Chevron Deference has been overturned? SC Jack Smith was appointed by AG Garland but SCJ Thomas and judge Cannon say it was unconstitutional.
In: Other
The CFR still exists, courts simply don’t need to agree with an agency when that agency interprets laws passed by Congress.
There were basically 3 kinds of deference:
1. *Skidmore* deference. Courts should defer to persuasive interpretations of laws from agencies. In other words, courts aren’t bound by agency’s interpretations, but should still consider them. **This still exists.**
2. *Chevron* deference. When there is an ambiguity in a statute and an agency’s interpretation could be correct, a court **must** defer to them and cannot substitute its own judgement. **This was overturned.**
3. *Auer* deference. Courts **must** defer to an agency’s interpretation of **its own regulations** (this is ***different*** from its interpretations of laws passed by Congress). The idea is that the agency wrote the regulation, so they are best placed to know what they meant. Courts can still overturn interpretations that are plainly erroneous or inconsistent. **This still exists.**
I’m not sure what you are getting at with the second question. To my knowledge, it didn’t have anything to do with the CFR. In addition, trial-level judges can be wrong and overturned on appeal.
Latest Answers