Chevron on Stilts: A Response to Jonathan Siegel

Authors

Philip A. Hamburger, Columbia Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2018

Abstract

Whither Chevron? For several years, some justices of the Supreme Court have been questioning Chevron deference, partly on the basis of my constitutional critique of it. It was inevitable that someone would stand up in defense of that doctrine, and I am glad to say that my estimable former colleague Jonathan Siegel has stepped up to the plate. But the defense of the indefensible is not easy.

Although the long-standing conventional critique of Chevron was that it violates the separation of powers and federalism, my criticism is that Chevron deference corrupts the judicial process. As adumbrated in my 2014 book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? and developed in an article Chevron Bias, the constitutional problem with Chevron deference is twofold: its departure from independent judgment and its embrace of judicial bias.

Disciplines

Administrative Law | Courts | Law

Comments

Reprinted with permission by the Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc.

Recommended Citation

Philip A. Hamburger, Chevron on Stilts: A Response to Jonathan Siegel, 72 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 77 (2018).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3187