{"title":"In Search of Skidmore","authors":"P. Strauss","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2287343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a coup en banc, Justice Scalia appears to have converted his lonely and furious dissent from United States v. Mead Corp. into the eight to one majority holding in City of Arlington v. FCC. Much will doubtless be said about this opinion, as about all Chevron matters generally, but to note here is that 186 years of precedent for the proposition that judges interpreting statutes involving agency authority should give substantial weight to agency views have simply disappeared. Whether agencies have authority to act, a legal question, is either all Chevron (the majority) or no deference at all (Chief Justice Roberts' dissent). The centuries-old proposition Justice Jackson captured in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. receives passing mention only in the solitary opinion of Justice Breyer.Perhaps as remarkable is that the statutory command that agency conclusions must be reasonable has also disappeared. \"Permissible\" is now the judicially enforceable limit, if this opinion is to be believed.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2287343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a coup en banc, Justice Scalia appears to have converted his lonely and furious dissent from United States v. Mead Corp. into the eight to one majority holding in City of Arlington v. FCC. Much will doubtless be said about this opinion, as about all Chevron matters generally, but to note here is that 186 years of precedent for the proposition that judges interpreting statutes involving agency authority should give substantial weight to agency views have simply disappeared. Whether agencies have authority to act, a legal question, is either all Chevron (the majority) or no deference at all (Chief Justice Roberts' dissent). The centuries-old proposition Justice Jackson captured in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. receives passing mention only in the solitary opinion of Justice Breyer.Perhaps as remarkable is that the statutory command that agency conclusions must be reasonable has also disappeared. "Permissible" is now the judicially enforceable limit, if this opinion is to be believed.
在一次政变中,大法官斯卡利亚似乎将他在美国诉米德公司案中孤独而愤怒的反对意见转化为阿灵顿市诉联邦通信委员会案中8比1的多数意见。毫无疑问,对于这一观点,人们会说很多,就像对雪佛龙公司的所有案件一样,但这里要注意的是,186年来关于法官解释涉及机构权力的法规时应充分考虑机构意见这一主张的先例,已经完全消失了。机构是否有权采取行动,这是一个法律问题,要么是雪佛龙(多数),要么根本不服从(首席大法官罗伯茨的异议)。杰克逊大法官在斯基德莫尔诉斯威夫特公司案(Skidmore v. Swift & Co.)中提出的几个世纪前的主张,只在布雷耶大法官的单独意见中被提及。也许同样值得注意的是,关于机构结论必须合理的法定命令也消失了。如果这种观点可信的话,“允许”现在是司法上可强制执行的限制。
期刊介绍:
The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.