Under Chevron deference, when is the agency's interpretation of a statute typically entitled to deference?

Under Chevron deference, when is the agency's interpretation of a statute typically entitled to deference?

• A. When the statutory term is silent or ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable or permissible.
• B. When the interpretation is broad and policy-driven.
• C. When the interpretation is adopted by a unanimous agency board.
• D. When the interpretation is supported by external expert testimony.

Answer: (A)

Under Chevron deference, courts give an agency’s reading of a statute deference when the statute is not clear on its own. If the statutory language is silent or ambiguous after considering its text, structure, and purpose, the agency’s interpretation is entitled to deference as long as it is a reasonable or permissible construction. The idea is that the agency has expertise in implementing the statute, so its interpretation guides the courts when the statute does not resolve the ambiguity. If the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court does not rely on the agency’s interpretation at all and instead follows the clear statutory meaning. Deference hinges on ambiguity and reasonableness, not on broad policy goals, unanimous agency votes, or external expert testimony.

Under Chevron deference, courts give an agency’s reading of a statute deference when the statute is not clear on its own. If the statutory language is silent or ambiguous after considering its text, structure, and purpose, the agency’s interpretation is entitled to deference as long as it is a reasonable or permissible construction. The idea is that the agency has expertise in implementing the statute, so its interpretation guides the courts when the statute does not resolve the ambiguity.

If the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court does not rely on the agency’s interpretation at all and instead follows the clear statutory meaning. Deference hinges on ambiguity and reasonableness, not on broad policy goals, unanimous agency votes, or external expert testimony.