Five pillars of the administrative state: Judicial control
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
| Judicial control |
|
•Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Agency control • Executive control •Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Judicial control of agencies is one of five pillars used to understand Ballotpedia's coverage of the administrative state. It focuses on the balance of power between administrative agencies and the courts.
Judicial control is a central concept in the debate over the nature and scope of the administrative state. It involves two primary components: judicial review of agency rules and judicial deference. Judicial review refers to the courts' authority to examine and potentially overturn agency actions or rules. Judicial deference, on the other hand, occurs when a court defers to an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation it has issued. In other words, when a law or regulation is challenged in court, the agency’s interpretation is upheld if it is deemed reasonable, even if the court would prefer a different interpretation.
This article includes information about the following topics:
Key terms related to judicial control of the administrative state: This section contains important terms and definitions related to the judicial control of the administrative state.
Key laws and court cases related to judicial control of the administrative state: This section contains important laws and policies related to the judicial control of the administrative state.
- Court cases : This section contains significant court rulings related to the judicial control of the administrative state.
- Federal laws: This section contains key federal policies regarding judicial control of the administrative state.
- State laws: This section contains a 50-state survey of constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to see how each state approaches judicial deference.
Recent legislation related to judicial control of the administrative state: This section tracks recent legislation by states about the judicial control of the administrative state.
Reform proposals related to judicial control of the administrative state: This section contains reform proposals related to the judicial control of the administrative state.
Major arguments about the judicial control of the administrative state: This section contains key arguments about the judicial control of the administrative state.
A timeline of judicial control: This section contains a timeline of significant events related to judicial control of the administrative state.
Scholarly work related to judicial control of administrative agencies: This section contains important legal doctrines related to judicial control of the administrative state.
This section features a list of significant terms related to judicial control of the administrative state.
- Judicial review, in the context of the administrative state, refers to the power of courts to evaluate the actions of government agencies and ensure they are consistent with the law. Courts can assess whether these actions exceed the agency's legal authority, violate statutory requirements, or infringe upon constitutional rights. If an agency's actions are found to be unlawful or arbitrary, courts have the authority to invalidate or modify them. This process acts as a check on the power of the administrative state and agencies.[1]
- Deference is a principle of judicial review. In the context of administrative law, deference applies when a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of either a statute that Congress instructed the agency to administer or a regulation promulgated by the agency. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing agency actions, including Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference.[2][3]
- The arbitrary-or-capricious test is a legal standard of review used by judges to assess the actions of administrative agencies. It was originally defined in a provision of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which instructs courts reviewing agency actions to invalidate any that they find to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The test is most frequently employed to assess the factual basis of an agency's rulemaking, especially informal rulemaking.[4][5]
- De novo (Latin for "from the new"), in the context of administrative law, is a standard of judicial review in which a federal court examines an executive agency action, such as a regulation or an adjudicatory decision, without deference to a previous interpretation of the underlying statute in question. De novo review is sometimes referred to as plenary review.[6][7]
This section features a list of significant laws and court cases related to judicial control of the administrative state and a 50-state survey related to judicial deference.
This section contains important legal doctrines related to judicial control of the administrative state.
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) overruled Chevron, holding that courts need not defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
- Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (2024) also overruled Chevron, rejecting the idea that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
- Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) upheld Auer deference, allowing courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous regulations, but narrowly defined the scope of such deference.
- Christensen v. Harris County (2000) limited Chevron deference, ruling that non-legislative agency actions, like opinion letters, are not entitled to binding authority.
- Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) established the principle of Chevron deference, requiring courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers.
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944) established that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of laws when the agency’s expertise and reasoning are persuasive, but not binding.
For a full list of court cases related to the administrative state, click here.
This section contains important legal doctrines related to executive control of the administrative state.
- The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal law passed in 1946 establishing uniform procedures for federal agencies to propose and issue regulations, a process known as rulemaking. The APA also addresses policy statements and licenses issued by agencies and provides for judicial review of agency adjudications and other final decisions.[8][9][10]
- The Federal Courts Improvement Act (FCIA) impacted judicial review as it relates to the administrative state, particularly by centralizing and streamlining the review of administrative decisions. [11]
For a full list of laws related to the administrative state, click here.
A 50-state survey of the administrative state: Each of the 50 states has its own state-level Administrative Procedures Act and, of course, a constitution, a number of which have stronger or weaker provisions for empowering or reining in the administrative state at the state level.
The following links contain components of the 50-state survey related to judicial control of the administrative state.
- Judicial deference: A 50-state survey
- Judicial deference: States that require de novo review of agency decisions
- Judicial deference: States with different standards for agency actions in civil versus criminal cases
- See also: Administrative State Legislation Tracker
Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker identified proposed and enacted bills in 2024 and 2025 related to the administrative state. This section tracks recent legislation bills related to judicial control of the administrative state. To see all proposed legislation related to judicial control, click here.
Ballotpedia has identified two major types of legislation categories related to judicial control:
- Judicial review of agency actions: These bills establish or modify a process for judicial review of agency actions.
- Judicial deference: These bills most often propose de novo review of agency rules, but may place other limits on judicial deference procedures in the state.
Judicial review of agency actions legislation
This legislative approach addresses judicial review, which is the process by which courts evaluate agency actions. Proposals may seek to establish or modify review procedures, define the scope of judicial oversight, or set standards for assessing agency decisions. To see all proposed legislation related to judicial review, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to judicial review of agency actions in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[12]
Judicial deference legislation
This legislative approach addresses judicial deference, which occurs when a court defers to an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation. Proposals may seek to limit or expand deference, establish specific review standards such as de novo review, or impose other procedural requirements. To see all proposed legislation related to judicial deference, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to judicial deference in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[13]
This section contains reform proposals related to the judicial control of the administrative state.
- Legislative branch approaches
- Executive branch approaches
- Judicial branch approaches
- Do nothing: Keep current judicial deference precedents
Major arguments about the judicial control of the administrative state
This section contains key arguments about the judicial control of the administrative state.
Arguments against judicial deference
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Deference is unconstitutional
- Claim: Article III forbids courts from exercising deference
- Claim: Chevron deference creates opportunities for systemic bias
- Claim: Deference prevents judicial review
- Claim: Chevron deference violates the nondelegation doctrine
2. Argument: Deference violates separation of powers principles
- Claim: Deference violates the separation of powers
- Claim: Auer deference violates separation of powers
3. Argument: Deference violates legal practices and precedent
- Claim: Chevron (1984) was a break from the legal practice of the early American Republic
- Claim: Precedents establishing the scope of the writ of mandamus cut against the Chevron doctrine
- Claim: The APA was created with the idea that questions of law would be subject to de novo judicial review and limit judicial deference
- Claim: Deference abandons a legal-interpretive tradition dating to 17th-Century English courts
- Claim: The use of Chevron deference to defer to an agency’s informal adjudication procedures denies due process
4. Argument: Deference is the product of bad jurisprudence
Arguments in favor of judicial deference
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Deference respects expertise
- Claim: Deference allows for expertise
- Claim: Agencies have the discretion to consider relevant factors during decision making
2. Argument: Deference produces better outcomes
- Claim: Chevron deference is better than a case-by-case approach
- Claim: Chevron doctrine allows for agency flexibility
3. Argument: Deference is constitutional
- Claim: Chevron deference does not create judicial bias in favor of agencies
- Claim: The nondelegation doctrine allows Chevron deference
- Claim: Judges may evaluate policy outcomes to make decisions
- Claim: Chevron reconciles the administrative state with constitutional law principles
4. Argument: Deference recognizes congressional delegations of authority to agencies
- Claim: Statutory ambiguity should be understood as a delegation of authority
- Claim: Sometimes courts fulfill their judicial duty by interpreting ambiguous statutes as vesting power in agencies
5. Argument: Deference is required by separation of powers
6. Argument: Deference adheres to legal practices and precedent
- Claim: Chevron (1984) did not make new law
- Claim: Chevron is a legitimate framework built on the tradition of deference in mandamus cases
- Claim: Deference is the law under the APA
- Claim: United States Supreme Court precedents deferring to agency factual determinations led to deferring to legal determinations
- Claim: Arbitrary-and-capricious review requires less of agencies than some judges believe
A timeline of judicial control
- See also: Judicial deference: a timeline
This section contains a timeline of significant events related to judicial control of the administrative state. For a full timeline related to judicial control, click here.
- June 28, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, holding that federal courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.[14]
- June 30, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court invoked the major questions doctrine for the first time in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency to limit the scope of the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[15]
- June 29, 2015
In Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court further narrowed Chevron deference, ruling that agencies must operate within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.[16]
- June 25, 2015
In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Chevron deference does not apply to questions of great economic and political significance.[16]
- June 18, 2001
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Mead Corporation that Chevron deference applies only to agency regulations and adjudicatory actions, while other agency actions fall under Skidmore deference.[17][16]
This page contains briefs on scholarly works related to judicial deference to administrative agencies covered on Ballotpedia. For a list of scholarly work related to judicial control, click here.
Explore more pillars
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Legislative control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Executive control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Public control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency control
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Judicial review," accessed December 11, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Yale Law Journal, "The Origins of Judicial Deference to Executive Interpretation," February 2017 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "yale" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Blattmachr, J. (2006). Circular 230 Deskbook. New York, NY: Practising Law Institute. (pages 1-21)
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act," accessed August 14, 2017
- ↑ Center for Effective Government, "Arbitrary-or-Capricious Test," accessed August 15, 2017
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "De novo" accessed July 20, 2017
- ↑ Quimbee, "Plenary Review," accessed August 15, 2019
- ↑ The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 4, 2017
- ↑ Electronic Privacy Information Center, "The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)," accessed August 14, 2017
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act," accessed August 14, 2017
- ↑ Congress.gov, "H.R.3968 - Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: judicial review of agency actions," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: judicial deference," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.," June 28, 2024
- ↑ Reuters, "U.S. Supreme Court just gave federal agencies a big reason to worry," June 30, 2022
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 The Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, "Attacking Auer and Chevron Deference: A Literature Review," 2018
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Yale Law Journal, "The Origins of Judicial Deference to Executive Interpretation," 2017
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 The Georgetown Law Journal, "The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan," January 1, 2008
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Duke Law Journal, "Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law," June 1989
| |||||||||||