Introduction

In Kisor v. Wilkie (139 S. Ct. 2400, 2019), the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue in administrative law: the extent of judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, known as Auer deference. The case centered on James Kisor, a Vietnam War veteran who sought retroactive disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After an initial denial in 1982, the VA reversed its decision in 2006 but granted the benefits only from the reopening date, not retroactively. The VA Board of Veterans' Appeals upheld this decision based on its interpretation of VA regulations, which was affirmed by lower courts employing Auer deference. Kisor challenged this deference doctrine, prompting the Supreme Court to reconsider its stance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case for further proceedings. While affirming the importance of Auer and Seminole Rock deference, the Court significantly limited its scope. The majority upheld Auer deference but imposed stricter criteria for its application, emphasizing that courts must only defer to agency interpretations when regulations are genuinely ambiguous, and the agency's interpretation is reasonable, authoritative, and free from unfair surprises. This decision redefines the boundaries of Auer deference, ensuring that judicial review remains robust and independent.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie referenced several foundational cases in administrative law:

• AUER v. ROBBINS (1997): Established the doctrine of Auer deference, where courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
• Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945): An early case that laid the groundwork for deference to agency interpretations during wartime economic controls.
• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984): Introduced Chevron deference, whereby courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
• Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944): Established a non-binding form of deference based on the persuasiveness of the agency’s interpretation.
• United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1908): Discussed the Reporter of Decisions and the preparation of syllabi, clarifying that syllabi do not form part of the judicial opinion.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning in Kisor v. Wilkie focused on refining the application of Auer deference rather than discarding it entirely. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Kagan, recognized the historical basis and intent behind Auer deference but underscored several limitations:

• Genuine Ambiguity: Deference is warranted only when a regulation is genuinely ambiguous after exhausting traditional interpretive tools such as textual, structural, historical, and purposive analyses.
• Reasonableness of Interpretation: The agency's interpretation must fall within the bounds of a reasonable interpretation, ensuring it is not arbitrary or capricious.
• Authority and Expertise: The agency's interpretation must be authoritative, reflecting its substantive expertise and considered judgment, avoiding interpretations that create unfair surprises or disrupt reliance interests.
• Limiting Factors: The Court introduced markers to determine when Auer deference should not apply, such as when interpretations stem from non-authoritative sources or lack substantive expertise relevance.

By imposing these criteria, the Court aimed to prevent overreach by agencies and ensure that judicial review remains a check on administrative power.

Impact

The ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie has profound implications for administrative law:

• Enhanced Judicial Oversight: Courts are empowered to more rigorously assess when to apply Auer deference, promoting greater independence in judicial interpretations.
• Regulatory Clarity: Agencies may be incentivized to draft clearer regulations to reduce ambiguity and the subsequent need for judicial deference.
• Future Litigation: Lower courts will navigate a more nuanced framework when deciding to defer to agency interpretations, likely increasing the complexity and duration of administrative disputes.
• Balance of Power: The decision seeks to rebalance the relationship between the judiciary and administrative agencies, curbing excessive deference while still recognizing agency expertise where appropriate.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in interpreting the law, ensuring that agency interpretations do not override constitutional and statutory mandates without proper justification.