Auer v Robbins and reinterpretation under Kisor v Wilkie
⚖️ Part 1: Background – Auer Deference Doctrine
🔹 What is Auer Deference?
Auer deference is a principle of administrative law under which courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, so long as the interpretation is not:
Clearly erroneous
Inconsistent with the regulation
Unreasonable
This doctrine originates from:
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Police sergeants sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming they were owed overtime. The issue was whether they were exempt executive employees. The Department of Labor had a regulation defining “executive” employees, which the agency interpreted to include the sergeants.
Issue:
Should the court defer to the Department of Labor’s interpretation of its own regulation?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, deferred to the agency’s interpretation of its ambiguous regulation.
Importance:
Established what became known as Auer deference.
Courts defer to agencies' interpretations of their own rules, even if made during litigation, unless plainly erroneous.
⚖️ Part 2: Reinterpretation – Kisor v. Wilkie (2019)
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)
Facts:
A Vietnam War veteran, James Kisor, applied for disability benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied benefits, interpreting its own regulation to exclude Kisor's claim.
Issue:
Should courts continue to apply Auer deference to agency interpretations?
Held:
Auer deference survives, but with strict limitations. The Court reined in the doctrine, emphasizing that:
Courts must exhaust all traditional tools of construction before declaring a regulation ambiguous.
Key Takeaways from Kisor:
Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority (Justice Kagan) but wrote a concurring opinion, narrowing the scope:
🔑 Kisor Framework – 5-Step Test:
Genuine Ambiguity: Courts must first determine that the regulation is truly ambiguous after applying traditional tools of statutory interpretation.
Agency’s Expertise: The agency’s interpretation must involve its substantive expertise.
Authoritative Interpretation: The interpretation must be the agency’s official, considered position, not a convenient litigating stance.
Fair and Reasoned Judgment: The interpretation must reflect fair and considered judgment, not a post hoc rationalization.
Consistency: The interpretation must be consistent with prior interpretations and not create unfair surprise.
⚖️ Part 3: Additional Key Cases on Auer/Kisor Deference
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012)
Facts:
Pharmaceutical sales reps sued for overtime, claiming they weren't exempt under the FLSA. The Department of Labor issued a new interpretation during litigation.
Issue:
Should Auer deference apply to the Department’s interpretation of its own ambiguous rule?
Held:
No. The Court refused to apply Auer deference because:
The interpretation came as a litigation tactic.
It created an unfair surprise to regulated parties.
Importance:
Introduced limits to Auer deference before Kisor formalized them.
Emphasized that consistency and fair notice are essential.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts:
The Department of Labor issued new guidance reclassifying mortgage loan officers as non-exempt, without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Issue:
Must agencies use formal procedures when changing interpretive rules?
Held:
No. The Court held that agencies can change interpretive rules without notice-and-comment procedures.
However, Justice Scalia, in concurrence, criticized Auer deference, arguing it gave too much unchecked power to agencies.
Importance:
Foreshadowed the reevaluation of Auer in Kisor.
Highlighted growing judicial discomfort with agency self-deference.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)
Facts:
The Attorney General tried to prohibit physician-assisted suicide in Oregon by interpreting a federal regulation under the Controlled Substances Act.
Issue:
Should courts defer to the Attorney General's interpretation of a regulation outside his area of expertise?
Held:
No. The Court rejected the Attorney General's interpretation.
Importance:
Limited Auer/agency deference when the agency lacks subject-matter expertise.
Affirmed that separation of powers limits how far courts defer to agencies.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (2013)
Facts:
Environmental groups challenged the EPA’s interpretation of stormwater discharge rules under the Clean Water Act.
Issue:
Should Auer deference apply to EPA’s interpretation?
Held:
Yes. The majority deferred to EPA, but Justice Scalia dissented, calling for the overruling of Auer.
Importance:
Significant for Scalia’s reversal of his own position in Auer v. Robbins.
Marked the start of serious judicial questioning of Auer.
🧑⚖️ Case 7: National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Note: This case deals with Chevron deference, not Auer specifically, but it’s important because it showed broad judicial deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes and regulations.
Importance:
Helped establish the judicial posture of deference that Kisor later began to narrow.
Kisor limits the unqualified deference that Brand X and Auer once allowed.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Holding | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auer v. Robbins | 1997 | Courts should defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own rules | Origin of Auer deference |
| Kisor v. Wilkie | 2019 | Auer survives but is narrowed; 5-part test introduced | Redefines scope of agency deference |
| Christopher v. SmithKline | 2012 | No deference for post hoc interpretations | Introduced early limits |
| Perez v. Mortgage Bankers | 2015 | No notice needed for changing interpretive rules | Sparked critique of Auer |
| Gonzales v. Oregon | 2006 | No deference where agency lacks subject-matter authority | Limits Auer on scope grounds |
| Decker v. NEDC | 2013 | EPA granted deference, but dissent pushes to overrule Auer | Judicial split appears |
| Brand X (for context) | 2005 | Deference under Chevron allowed conflicting interpretations | Shows general deference trend |
🧠 Final Thoughts
Auer v. Robbins created strong agency power to interpret regulations.
Kisor v. Wilkie limited that power, demanding genuine ambiguity and reasoned, authoritative interpretations.
Courts now rarely defer blindly to agencies and must apply detailed scrutiny.
Kisor is now the controlling standard when courts assess whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation — a more balanced approach that respects both agency expertise and judicial independence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments