Kisor v. Wilkie

Definition

Kisor v. Wilkie is a significant Supreme Court case from 2019 that addressed the application of the Auer deference doctrine, which allows courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations if that interpretation is reasonable. The ruling emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving agency interpretations and clarified the limits of this deference, connecting it to the broader principles of administrative law and the delegation doctrine.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie that Auer deference still applies but must be carefully limited and justified, requiring courts to ensure that the agency's interpretation meets specific criteria.
2. The case involved a veteran seeking disability benefits, where the Department of Veterans Affairs' interpretation of its regulation was challenged.
3. The decision maintained that not all agency interpretations warrant deference; courts must first confirm that the regulation is genuinely ambiguous before deferring.
4. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that while agencies have expertise, courts retain a crucial role in reviewing their interpretations.
5. This case reflects ongoing debates over the balance between agency authority and judicial oversight within administrative law.

Review Questions

• What key factors did the Supreme Court consider in determining whether to apply Auer deference in Kisor v. Wilkie?
  • In Kisor v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court emphasized that Auer deference should only be applied when the agency's regulation is genuinely ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. The Court considered whether the agency had expertise in the matter at hand and required courts to confirm ambiguity before deferring to an agency’s interpretation. This careful scrutiny was aimed at ensuring that judicial oversight remains robust while still acknowledging the role of agencies.
• How did Kisor v. Wilkie affect the legal landscape regarding administrative law and judicial review?
  • Kisor v. Wilkie significantly impacted administrative law by clarifying the boundaries of Auer deference, highlighting that not every agency interpretation deserves automatic judicial deference. The ruling reinforced the necessity for courts to actively assess both the ambiguity of regulations and the reasonableness of interpretations provided by agencies. This shift aims to strike a balance between respecting agency expertise and maintaining judicial oversight, potentially leading to more rigorous scrutiny of agency actions.
• Critically evaluate how Kisor v. Wilkie alters the relationship between agencies and courts within the framework of delegation doctrine.
  • Kisor v. Wilkie alters the relationship between agencies and courts by reinforcing judicial review over agency interpretations while still recognizing the delegation of regulatory authority. This case requires courts to engage more critically with agency interpretations, ensuring they are well-founded before granting deference. By doing so, it reinforces a system where agencies are held accountable for their decisions while respecting their role in administering complex regulatory frameworks. This balance reflects broader concerns about government authority and checks on power within the delegation doctrine.

Related terms

Auer Deference: A judicial doctrine that requires courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations unless that interpretation is unreasonable.

Administrative Procedure Act: A U.S. law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations, establishing a framework for public participation and judicial review.

Chevron Deference: A legal principle that compels courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute it administers, provided the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.