Auer v. Robbins

Definition

Auer v. Robbins is a Supreme Court case from 1997 that established a significant precedent regarding the deference given to administrative agency interpretations of their own regulations. In this case, the Court ruled that courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations unless that interpretation is 'plainly erroneous' or inconsistent with the regulation itself. This ruling connects to key aspects of delegation of authority and how agencies exercise discretion in interpreting laws and regulations.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Auer ruling emphasizes the importance of agencies being able to interpret their own regulations, promoting consistency and expertise in regulatory matters.
2. The decision is grounded in the principle that agencies are more familiar with the complexities and nuances of their regulations than courts.
3. This case arose from a dispute over whether police officers were entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) based on the agency's interpretation of its own rules.
4. The Court determined that an agency's interpretation must be respected unless it contradicts the regulation itself or is otherwise unreasonable.
5. Auer deference has been a point of debate, with discussions surrounding whether it grants too much power to agencies at the expense of judicial oversight.

Review Questions

• How does Auer v. Robbins shape the relationship between courts and administrative agencies when it comes to interpreting regulations?
  • Auer v. Robbins shapes the relationship between courts and administrative agencies by establishing a framework where courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations. This deference acknowledges that agencies possess specialized knowledge and experience, making them better suited to interpret their regulations. As a result, unless an agency's interpretation is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, courts are expected to uphold the agency's view, reinforcing the authority of administrative bodies.
• Discuss the implications of Auer v. Robbins on the delegation doctrine within administrative law.
  • The implications of Auer v. Robbins on the delegation doctrine are significant because it highlights how agencies can effectively exercise delegated authority through their interpretations of regulations. By allowing agencies to have discretion in interpreting their own rules, the decision underscores the trust placed in these bodies to implement laws effectively. However, this also raises concerns about accountability and oversight, as it can lead to potential overreach by agencies if their interpretations go unchecked by judicial review.
• Evaluate how Auer v. Robbins has influenced subsequent legal interpretations regarding agency power and regulation.
  • Auer v. Robbins has profoundly influenced subsequent legal interpretations regarding agency power and regulation by reinforcing the principle of deference in administrative law. This case has served as a foundational precedent for courts in evaluating agency interpretations, leading to ongoing debates about the balance between regulatory authority and judicial oversight. Critics argue that this deference may allow agencies too much leeway in shaping policy through interpretations that might not align with legislative intent, while supporters contend that it enables agencies to operate efficiently within their expertise. As a result, Auer continues to be a critical reference point in discussions about regulatory interpretation and agency power.

Related terms

Chevron Deference: A legal doctrine 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.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA): A federal statute that governs the way administrative agencies propose and establish regulations, including requirements for public notice and comment.

Interpretive Rule: A type of agency rule that clarifies or explains existing laws or regulations but does not have the force of law.