In Skidmore v. Swift & Co., which factors determine how much weight a reviewing court should give to an agency's interpretation?

In Skidmore v. Swift & Co., which factors determine how much weight a reviewing court should give to an agency's interpretation?

• A. When Congress delegated authority generally to make rules carrying the force of law and the agency interpretation was promulgated under that authority.
• B. When the court focuses on the agency's statutory mandate.
• C. When thoroughness of consideration, the validity of reasoning, consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and the power to persuade are evident.
• D. When the statutory term is silent or ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable or permissible.

Answer: (C)

The key concept is how much weight a court should give to an agency’s interpretation when reviewing statutes, not as a rule that must be followed automatically. Skidmore v. Swift & Co. teaches that an agency’s interpretation is persuasive rather than binding, and the weight it receives depends on several factors that reflect the quality of the agency’s reasoning. Specifically, the court looks at how thoroughly the agency considered the issue, how solid and logical its reasoning is, whether the interpretation aligns with the agency’s own prior and later pronouncements, and the extent to which the interpretation has the power to persuade. When an interpretation is the product of careful analysis, well-reasoned argument, consistency across the agency’s positions, and persuasive force, it warrants greater weight in the court’s decision. This approach stands in contrast to the Chevron framework, which affords automatic deference when Congress has delegated authority to issue rules and the statute is ambiguous; Skidmore focuses on persuasiveness rather than an automatic rule of deference.

The key concept is how much weight a court should give to an agency’s interpretation when reviewing statutes, not as a rule that must be followed automatically. Skidmore v. Swift & Co. teaches that an agency’s interpretation is persuasive rather than binding, and the weight it receives depends on several factors that reflect the quality of the agency’s reasoning. Specifically, the court looks at how thoroughly the agency considered the issue, how solid and logical its reasoning is, whether the interpretation aligns with the agency’s own prior and later pronouncements, and the extent to which the interpretation has the power to persuade. When an interpretation is the product of careful analysis, well-reasoned argument, consistency across the agency’s positions, and persuasive force, it warrants greater weight in the court’s decision. This approach stands in contrast to the Chevron framework, which affords automatic deference when Congress has delegated authority to issue rules and the statute is ambiguous; Skidmore focuses on persuasiveness rather than an automatic rule of deference.