REPLACING THE FLAWED CHEVRON STANDARD

Judicial review of agency statutory interpretations depends heavily on the linguistic concept of ambiguity. Most significantly, under Chevron, judicial deference to an agency's interpretation hinges on whether the court determines the statute to be ambiguous. Despite its importance, the ambigui...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:William and Mary law review 2018-10, Vol.60 (1), p.195
Main Author: Slocum, Brian G
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambiguity
Interpretation and construction
Judicial review of administrative acts
Legislative intent
Statutes
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Judicial review of agency statutory interpretations depends heavily on the linguistic concept of ambiguity. Most significantly, under Chevron, judicial deference to an agency's interpretation hinges on whether the court determines the statute to be ambiguous. Despite its importance, the ambiguity concept has been poorly developed by courts and deviates in important respects from how linguists approach ambiguity. For instance, courts conflate ambiguity identification and disambiguation and treat ambiguity as an umbrella concept that encompasses distinct forms of linguistic indeterminacy such as vagueness and generality. The resulting ambiguity standard is unpredictable and does not adequately perform its function of mediating between judicial interpretive autonomy and deference to agency interpretations.
ISSN:0043-5589