Skidmore deference in lower courts
Skidmore Deference: Overview
Skidmore deference comes from the 1944 Supreme Court case Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). It is a standard of judicial deference given to administrative agency interpretations of statutes or regulations when those interpretations do not have the force of law (i.e., are not the product of formal rulemaking or adjudication).
Unlike Chevron deference, which applies when Congress has delegated authority and the agency’s interpretation is formally binding, Skidmore deference depends on the persuasiveness of the agency’s position. Courts consider factors such as:
The thoroughness of the agency’s reasoning
Consistency with earlier and later pronouncements
The agency’s expertise
The overall validity of the interpretation
Key Case Law and Explanation of Skidmore Deference in Lower Courts
Case 1: Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)
Context: The foundational case where the Supreme Court refused to grant Chevron-like deference to the Wage and Hour Division’s informal opinion letters on overtime pay.
Ruling: The Court held that the agency’s interpretation deserves respect based on its power to persuade, not because it carries the force of law.
Significance: Established the “weight” test for agency interpretations without formal rulemaking.
Takeaway: Agencies deserve deference proportional to their expertise and reasoning.
Case 2: Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000)
Context: The Court considered whether to apply Chevron or Skidmore deference to a Department of Labor opinion letter.
Ruling: The Court refused Chevron deference because the opinion letter was not the result of formal processes, but said it may be entitled to Skidmore deference.
Significance: Clarified the boundary between Chevron and Skidmore deference.
Takeaway: Opinion letters and informal guidance can receive Skidmore deference if persuasive.
Case 3: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011)
Context: The IRS issued a revenue ruling regarding taxation of medical residents, which was challenged.
Ruling: The Court recognized deference principles but applied Chevron due to formal agency rulemaking; however, it acknowledged that less formal guidance might warrant Skidmore deference.
Significance: Emphasized the level of formality in agency action as key to the deference standard.
Takeaway: Skidmore applies primarily to informal agency interpretations.
Case 4: United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Context: The Court ruled on whether Customs rulings are entitled to Chevron deference or Skidmore deference.
Ruling: Customs rulings lacked Chevron status, so courts should apply Skidmore deference based on persuasiveness.
Significance: Clarified that many informal agency actions receive Skidmore deference, not Chevron.
Takeaway: Skidmore deference applies when agency interpretations don’t carry the force of law.
Case 5: In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
Context: The D.C. Circuit applied Skidmore deference to an EPA guidance document.
Ruling: The court held that the EPA’s interpretation deserved respect based on its expertise and thorough reasoning, despite lack of formal rulemaking.
Significance: Demonstrated how lower courts apply Skidmore deference to informal agency guidance.
Takeaway: Agencies can influence courts even without formal rulemaking if their reasoning is persuasive.
Case 6: Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 15034 (9th Cir. 2022)
Context: The 9th Circuit considered an informal USCIS policy interpretation.
Ruling: The court gave Skidmore deference to USCIS’s interpretation, emphasizing its consistency and expertise.
Significance: Shows Skidmore’s application beyond traditional agencies, including immigration services.
Takeaway: Skidmore deference applies across diverse administrative contexts where formal rulemaking is absent.
Case 7: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 777 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
Context: The court reviewed FLRA (Federal Labor Relations Authority) interpretations of labor statutes.
Ruling: The court applied Skidmore deference to FLRA’s informal interpretations, noting their persuasive power.
Significance: Reinforced the deference doctrine in administrative labor law.
Takeaway: Skidmore deference is key for agencies issuing informal but consistent guidance.
Summary Table:
| Case | Agency/Context | Type of Agency Action | Deference Standard Applied | Key Holding/Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skidmore v. Swift (1944) | Wage & Hour Division | Informal opinion letters | Skidmore | Deference depends on persuasiveness, not force of law |
| Christensen v. Harris County (2000) | Dept. of Labor | Opinion letter | Skidmore | Informal guidance gets Skidmore, not Chevron, deference |
| Mayo Foundation v. US (2011) | IRS | Revenue ruling (formal) | Chevron (formal), Skidmore (informal) | Formality matters in deference standard |
| US v. Mead Corp. (2001) | Customs | Customs rulings (informal) | Skidmore | Customs rulings get Skidmore, not Chevron, deference |
| In re Aiken County (2013) | EPA | Guidance document | Skidmore | Informal guidance with expert reasoning merits deference |
| Sanchez v. Mayorkas (2022) | USCIS | Informal policy interpretation | Skidmore | Applies across diverse agencies to informal interpretations |
| AFGE v. FLRA (2015) | FLRA | Informal statutory interpretations | Skidmore | Informal agency interpretations have persuasive value |
Additional Notes:
Skidmore deference is flexible and depends heavily on context and agency expertise.
It applies mostly to informal agency actions like opinion letters, policy statements, and guidance documents.
Courts carefully evaluate the reasoning quality, consistency, and expertise behind the agency’s interpretation.
Skidmore deference contrasts with Chevron deference, which is more rigid and applies to formal agency interpretations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments