dc.contributor.author | Stack, Kevin M. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-30T19:23:58Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-06-30T19:23:58Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 22 George Mason Law Review 669 (2015) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/7584 | |
dc.description | article published in law review | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | A lively debate has emerged over the deferential standard of review courts apply when reviewing an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. That standard, traditionally associated with Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and now more frequently attributed to Auer v. Robbins, states that a court must accept an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless the interpretation is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." This Article argues that a court’s choice of method for interpreting regulations — including how it determines which agency interpretations are inconsistent with the regulation — may be just as important, if not more important, to the outcome of review as the standard of review the court applies. The point that the outcome of review is a function not only of the standard but also of the interpretive method is long-acknowledged in the debate over Chevron. It applies to review of the interpretation of regulations as well. If the ultimate framework of review is a problem with two important dimensions — the standard of review and the interpretive method — then there is reason to evaluate the likely effects of different methods of regulatory interpretation. The Article then argues that a purposivist approach, one which requires readings of regulations to be consistent with those in the regulation’s preamble, identifies a narrower range of acceptable readings and offers greater notice of the regulation’s meaning than relying on the regulation’s text alone. As a result, this regulatory purposivist method holds promise for addressing many of the concerns motivating challenges to the Seminole Rock/Auer standard whether or not that standard is retained. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (26 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | George Mason Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject | Regulatory interpretation | en_US |
dc.subject | Judicial review | en_US |
dc.subject | Law -- United States -- Interpretation and construction. | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Law -- Interpretation and construction | en_US |
dc.title | The Interpretive Dimension of Seminole Rock | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.ssrn-uri | http://ssrn.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/abstract=2613522 | |