A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2017; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5075&context=flr">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
<i title="Elsevier BV">
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/container/tol7woxlqjeg5bmzadeg6qrg3e" style="color: black;">Social Science Research Network</a>
How much deference-or what kind-should courts give to longstanding agency interpretations of statutes? Surprisingly, courts and scholars lack a coherent answer to this question. Legal scholars long have assumed that longstanding agency statutory interpretations are treated with heightened deference on judicial review, and federal courts sometimes have made statements suggesting that this is the case. But in practice, federal court review of longstanding agency interpretations-at both the U.S.<span class="external-identifiers"> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2224066">doi:10.2139/ssrn.2224066</a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/atvbui7jb5cpzhe7dbip32sqie">fatcat:atvbui7jb5cpzhe7dbip32sqie</a> </span>
more »... preme Court and courts of appeals-turns out to be surprisingly erratic. Reviewing courts sometimes note the longevity of an agency's statutory interpretation as a plus factor in their deference analysis but at other times completely ignore or dismiss an agency interpretation's longevity. Moreover, judicial rhetoric about the relevance of longevity in the review of agency statutory interpretations is inconsistent from case to case. What makes this doctrinal incoherence particularly remarkable is that courts usually care much more about the predictability of statutory interpretations and about upsetting settled institutional practices. In fact, in two analogous contexts-judicial interpretations of statutes and historical executive branch practice in the constitutional arena-courts accord strong precedential effect, or a presumption of correctness, to established legal constructions. This Article provides the first detailed study of federal court treatment of longstanding agency statutory interpretations, illuminating doctrinal inconsistencies and examining longevity-related factors that both favor and disfavor deference. The Article also compares federal courts' chaotic treatment of longstanding agency statutory interpretations with the precedential effect that courts give to longstanding judicial interpretations of statutes and the historical * Professor of Law, St. John's University School of Law.
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170921215610/http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5075&context=flr" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext"> <button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="icon ia-icon"></i> Web Archive [PDF] <div class="menu fulltext-thumbnail"> <img src="https://blobs.fatcat.wiki/thumbnail/pdf/01/05/01055d053ea18ce0ae5fe27da2afb363b706d24b.180px.jpg" alt="fulltext thumbnail" loading="lazy"> </div> </button> </a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2224066"> <button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="external alternate icon"></i> ssrn.com </button> </a>