In a response to the anticipation of the US Supreme Court potentially overturning the long-established policy of judicial deference toward federal agencies’ interpretation of unclear laws, an official of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has implied that the impact on the Board might not be as significant as feared.
The policy under discussion allows federal agencies substantial leniency in interpreting ambiguous legislation as it relates to their specific jurisdiction. This commonly referred to as the Auer and Chevron deference, pertaining to the two court rulings that codified the practice. In recent times, however, it has come under increasing scrutiny and now appears to be threatened within the Supreme Court.
Many in the legal profession are apprehensively observing these developments, as a reversal could have extensive ramifications on countless aspects of government regulation, potentially limiting the latitude agencies’ have to carry out their functions. It comes as little surprise then that this potential change is receiving significant attention.
On this topic, however, the official from the NLRB has given cause for some optimism. Their comments—an anticipation of lesser impacts on the NLRB—are not elaborated upon as yet. Regardless, they are sure to be a talking point amongst legal professionals monitoring these developments closely.
While this is not the end of the story on judicial deference, these comments from the NLRB official indicate a lesser sense of alarm within at least one key federal agency. The debate on the doctrine’s future continues to be a simmering concern for legal professionals everywhere.
For the complete discussion on this impending development, read more at the original article.