Deference to agencies must not abdicate judicial review over policy decisions
Evidence
The construction put on a statute by the agency charged with administering it is entitled to deference by the courts, and ordinarily that construction will be affirmed if it has a “reasonable basis in law,” but “[t]he deference owed to an expert tribunal cannot be allowed to slip into a judicial inertia which results in the unauthorized assumption by an agency of major policy decisions properly made by Congress.” — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1234
Categorization
- DEFINE: States the core Chevron-era deference standard and its limit: an agency’s construction is affirmed if it has a ‘reasonable basis in law,’ but deference cannot slip into judicial inertia.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1234
- XREF: connects to: Statutory silence on a question delegates discretion to the administrative agency. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 898; Procedural compliance alone does not immunize a zoning decision from judicial review — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1152; Judges may not comment on government policy or law merits. — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 3260 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Judicial review is the judiciary’s core duty and province
#corroborates(0.65) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1368 - Judges may not comment on government policy or law merits.
#contradicts(0.60) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 3260