A pillar of American administrative law, the Chevron Doctrine defines the dynamic between the judiciary and government agencies. The theory, which was developed by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc., offers a framework that courts can use to evaluate how agencies have interpreted statutes.
The Chevron Doctrine imposes a two-step procedure on courts. They first ascertain if the relevant statute is unequivocal and clear with reference to the matter at hand. If Congress’s aim is evident, then it must be interpreted that way. On the other hand, the court moves on to the second phase if the statute is unclear or silent on the particular matter.
The court assesses whether the agency’s interpretation is “reasonable” and allowed by the statute in the second phase. Even though the court might have interpreted the Act differently, it defers to the agency’s knowledge and judgement if its view satisfies this condition.
The Chevron Doctrine acknowledges that agencies are more qualified than courts to handle complicated regulatory issues since they have specialised knowledge in these areas. It significantly affects administrative law, frequently deciding how much regulatory authority federal agencies have.
The concept has been important in many cases, but it has also drawn criticism and requests for reform. Some contend that the theory gives federal agencies too much respect, which could weaken court control.
