{"id":25312,"date":"2016-01-28T12:26:05","date_gmt":"2016-01-28T17:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=25312"},"modified":"2016-01-28T12:34:56","modified_gmt":"2016-01-28T17:34:56","slug":"doing-away-with-deference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2016\/01\/doing-away-with-deference\/","title":{"rendered":"Doing away with deference?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Legislative bodies often delegate significant authority to administrative agencies.\u00a0 In the course of its work, an agency must reach legal conclusions about how to interpret and apply a statute it administers.\u00a0 Most agencies employ attorneys for just that purpose.\u00a0 When an agency\u2019s legal interpretation is challenged, federal and state courts commonly defer to the agency in recognition to the agency\u2019s subject-matter expertise and experience.\u00a0 \"gavel\"<\/a>Federal courts use the well-known Chevron<\/a>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>standard, analyzing first whether Congress has \u201cdirectly spoken to the precise question at issue\u201d; if it has, the court must give effect to that Congressional intent.\u00a0 But if the statute is silent or ambiguous, the court defers to the agency interpretation if it is \u201cbased on a permissible construction of the statute,\u201d even if the court would have reached a different outcome.\u00a0 Wisconsin courts take a similarly deferential approach to reviewing agency legal interpretations.<\/p>\n

Without the benefit of reliance on an agency\u2019s interpretation of such specialized questions, courts would have to overcome \u201clack of training and expertise, lack of time, [and] lack of staff assistance. . . .\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 In the environmental context, federal courts have therefore resisted calls to inject themselves into the day to day management of natural resources, and have avoided becoming \u201cforestmasters,\u201d \u201croadmasters,\u201d \u201cfishmasters,\u201d \u201cwatermasters,\u201d and \u201crangemasters;\u201d instead, they have deferred to the agencies created for those purposes.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Over the years, however, some jurists have questioned whether this deferential approach straitjackets reviewing courts, sapping their power in favor of unelected administrative agency representatives.\u00a0 Inspired by those concerns, a bill currently pending in the Wisconsin Legislature, A.B. 582<\/a>, would eliminate judicial deference to agency legal interpretations in particular contexts.\u00a0 To put it mildly, this would be a major development in Wisconsin administrative law and would deeply change the relationship and relative balance of power between agencies and reviewing courts in the state.<\/p>\n

In Wisconsin, courts currently accord agency legal interpretations one of three potential levels of deference: great weight deference, due weight deference and no deference<\/a>.[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Great weight deference applies when the agency is charged by the legislature with administering the statute; when the agency\u2019s interpretation is longstanding; when the agency applied its expertise or specialized knowledge in forming its interpretation; and when the agency\u2019s interpretation will provide uniformity and consistency in applying the statute.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 Due weight deference applies when an agency has some experience with a statute but not enough to put it in a better position than courts.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 No deference is given when an agency completely lacks experience or expertise in deciding the particular legal issue, or when the agency\u2019s position has been \u201cso inconsistent as to provide no real guidance.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

This well-established framework is generally in accord with Wis. Stat. \u00a7 227.57<\/a>, which governs the scope of judicial review of administrative provisions and provides in part that \u201cthe court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Assembly Bill 582<\/a> would change that approach in some contexts.\u00a0 On January 26, the Assembly Committee on Housing and Real Estate recommended passage by a 5-2 vote and advanced the bill to the Assembly Rules Committee.\u00a0 In its current form, the bill would create Wis. Stat. \u00a7 227.57(11)(a) to read:<\/p>\n

“Upon review of an agency action or decision affecting a property owner\u2019s use of the property owner\u2019s property, the court shall accord no deference to the agency\u2019s interpretation of law if the agency action or decision restricts the property owner\u2019s free use of the property owner\u2019s property.”<\/p>\n

Both supporters and critics of the bill have raised concerns related to the constitutional separation of powers.\u00a0 The bill\u2019s author, Rep. Adam Jarchow, says that the bill addresses the \u201cproblem [of] state agencies that write, interpret and enforce the laws in a system under which the courts then \u2018rubberstamp\u2019 decisions.\u201d<\/a> Yet some legal observers have questioned whether the Legislature is overstepping its role by dictating the standard of review to courts.\u00a0 Critics also contend that the provision would violate equal protection on the grounds that it applies only to property owners, and not other entities challenging agency actions<\/a>. Whatever the outcome, the bill will certainly generate discussion as to the appropriate roles of the three branches in our governmental structure.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC<\/em>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).\u00a0 Over the years, federal courts have moderately scaled back the types of agency actions to which Chevron <\/em>applies.\u00a0 See, e.g., United States v. Mead Corp.<\/em>, 533 U.S. 218 (2001); Iowa League of Cities v. EPA<\/em>, 711 F.3d 844 (8th<\/sup> Cir. 2013).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> NRDC v. Hodel<\/em>, 624 F. Supp. 1045, 1062-63 (D. Nev. 1985).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at 1062.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State Div. of Hearings and Appeals,<\/em> 2006 WI 86, \u00b6\u00b6 12-20, 292 Wis. 2d 549, 717 N.W.2d 184.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/em>, \u00b6 16.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Id.<\/em>, \u00b6 18.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id.<\/em>, \u00b6 19; Jamerson v. Dep\u2019t of Children and Families<\/em>, 2013 WI 7, \u00b6\u00b6 41-44.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Legislative bodies often delegate significant authority to administrative agencies.\u00a0 In the course of its work, an agency must reach legal conclusions about how to interpret and apply a statute it administers.\u00a0 Most agencies employ attorneys for just that purpose.\u00a0 When an agency\u2019s legal interpretation is challenged, federal and state courts commonly defer to the agency […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,122,181,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environmental-law","category-public","category-water-law","category-wisconsin","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}