How do courts treat 'interpretive rules' that interpret ambiguities in statutes?

How do courts treat 'interpretive rules' that interpret ambiguities in statutes?

• A. They are generally given less deference and may be reviewed for reasonableness and consistency with the statute.
• B. They are fully binding like legislative rules.
• C. They are not subject to judicial review.
• D. They always override statutory language.

Answer: (B)

Interpretive rules are means by which an agency explains how it reads a statute that is unclear. Courts treat those explanations as persuasive rather than controlling on their own. When a statute is ambiguous, the court will assess whether the agency’s interpretation is a reasonable reading that fits the statute’s language and purpose. If it is reasonable, the agency’s interpretation can guide the court and may receive deference, but it does not automatically bind everyone or override the plain statutory text. Only when the statutory language is clear does the text control, and the interpretive rule does not have the force to overwrite that language. This is why interpretive rules are given weight and reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, rather than being treated as always binding like legislative rules or as beyond review.

Interpretive rules are means by which an agency explains how it reads a statute that is unclear. Courts treat those explanations as persuasive rather than controlling on their own. When a statute is ambiguous, the court will assess whether the agency’s interpretation is a reasonable reading that fits the statute’s language and purpose. If it is reasonable, the agency’s interpretation can guide the court and may receive deference, but it does not automatically bind everyone or override the plain statutory text. Only when the statutory language is clear does the text control, and the interpretive rule does not have the force to overwrite that language. This is why interpretive rules are given weight and reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, rather than being treated as always binding like legislative rules or as beyond review.