Document Type


Publication Date



For most of the past decade, the Supreme Court seemed to be gradually eroding the deference accorded to administrative agencies. In Christensen v. Harris County and United States v. Mead Corp. the Court refused to accord Chevron deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes when the agencies adopted those interpretations through informal procedures. The trend appeared to continue when the Court refused to accord Chevron deference to tobacco regulations adopted by the Food and Drug Administration in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. or to controlled substance regulations adopted by the Attorney General in Gonzales v. Oregon. In addition, the Court cited Chevron less frequently in recent Terms. Academics suggested that these factors signaled a trend away from Chevron's call for judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes.