Skidmore deference
Skidmore Deference: Overview
Skidmore deference is a principle from U.S. administrative law where courts give respect to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, but only to the extent that the agency’s interpretation is persuasive and well-reasoned. Unlike Chevron deference, which gives binding effect to reasonable agency interpretations, Skidmore deference is more flexible and discretionary.
It originated from the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case Skidmore v. Swift & Co., and since then courts have applied it in situations where Chevron deference is not appropriate, especially when the agency’s interpretation lacks the force of law (e.g., informal rulings, opinion letters).
The Origin Case
1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)
Facts: The issue concerned whether employees who performed certain duties were entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Legal Question: What level of deference should courts give to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division's interpretation?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the Administrator’s interpretations deserve respect to the extent they have the “power to persuade,” based on their thoroughness, validity, consistency, and persuasiveness.
Significance: Established the doctrine that courts should weigh agency interpretations based on their persuasive power, not their binding force. This created a sliding scale of deference based on the quality of the agency's reasoning.
Cases Applying and Clarifying Skidmore Deference
2. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Facts: Concerned whether the U.S. Customs Service's classification rulings are entitled to Chevron deference.
Holding: The Court distinguished between formal agency rules and informal interpretations. It held that Chevron deference applies only when Congress has delegated authority and the agency acts through formal rulemaking or adjudication.
Significance: When Chevron deference doesn’t apply, courts should apply Skidmore deference to informal agency interpretations based on their persuasiveness.
Takeaway: Skidmore applies as a fallback when Chevron is unavailable.
3. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000)
Facts: The issue involved a Department of Labor opinion letter regarding whether public employers can require employees to use accrued compensatory time.
Holding: The Court declined to apply Chevron deference to the informal opinion letter, instead applying Skidmore deference.
Reasoning: The letter was persuasive but not binding because it lacked formal procedural backing.
Significance: This case illustrates Skidmore’s application to informal agency interpretations like opinion letters or policy statements.
4. Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002)
Facts: Dispute over Social Security benefits eligibility and the interpretation of certain statutory terms.
Holding: The Court recognized that agency interpretations not entitled to Chevron deference still deserve respect under Skidmore if persuasive.
Significance: Reaffirms the two-tier approach to deference: Chevron when delegation and procedures are met; Skidmore otherwise.
5. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts: Whether an agency must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to change a prior interpretation.
Holding: The Court held that an agency’s interpretive rule could be changed without notice and comment, but courts still review the new interpretation’s persuasiveness under Skidmore.
Significance: Confirms the continued relevance of Skidmore in reviewing interpretive rules and informal guidance.
Summary of Skidmore Deference Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Source | Comes from the Supreme Court case Skidmore v. Swift (1944). |
| Scope | Applies when Chevron deference is not appropriate (e.g., informal agency interpretations). |
| Basis of Deference | Courts evaluate the persuasiveness, consistency, thoroughness, and validity of the agency’s interpretation. |
| Binding Nature | Skidmore deference is non-binding; courts retain discretion but give respect to agency expertise. |
| Typical Applications | Applies to informal guidance, opinion letters, policy statements, and other non-binding agency interpretations. |
Practical Implications
Skidmore deference provides agencies some respect for their expertise even when their interpretations do not have the force of law.
Courts retain greater freedom to reject or accept agency views depending on their quality.
It is often contrasted with Chevron deference, which applies a more deferential standard.
RELATED Blog
0 comments