A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference

• Author: Rachel Scholz-Bright
• Position: J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2021; A.B., Dartmouth College, 2018
• Pages: 573-602

A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An

Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference

RACHEL SCHOLZ-BRIGHT*

ABSTRACT

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., estab-

lished the rule that courts should defer to executive agencies’ reasonable inter-

pretations of a statute, if that statute is genuinely ambiguous. Chevron has

sparked vigorous debate about the propriety and scope of executive power, leg-

islative delegation, and judicial review. Most recently, Chevron has been one

focus of originalist pushback against the administrative state, and in response,

the decision has largely been defended on non-originalist grounds. This note

argues that Chevron is in fact consistent with originalist understandings of the

Constitution and with early-republic judicial practices. First, Chevron is con-

sistent with traditional understandings of the separation of powers and the

extent of each branch’s powers. Second, the principles underlying both manda-

mus and the canons of construction that counsel deference to the executive each

support Chevron’s deferential approach to discretionary executive decisions.

Finally, Chevron can also be defended by adopting an originalist Thayerian

approach. This approach uses originalist methods to answer constitutional

questions that have determinable answers, while using a deferential, Thayerian

approach to answer constitutional questions based in areas of unresolvable

ambiguity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

A. The Rise of the Modern Administrative State and the Growing

Backlash against it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

B. Is Chevron Next?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577

1. The Initial Conservative Embrace of Chevron Deference 578

2. The Modern Conception of Chevron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

* J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2021; A.B., Dartmouth College, 2018. I would like to

thank Professor Gornstein and Judge Pillard for their thoughts and guidance on earlier versions of this

note during their Fall 2019 Federal Practice Seminar. My thanks as well to the editors and staff of the

Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy for their comments and suggestions. © 2021, Rachel

Scholz-Bright.

573

3. Justice Gorsuch and Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

II. ORIGINALISM AND ORIGINALIST THAYERIANISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582

A. Public-Meaning Originalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

B. The Construction Zone and an Originalist Thayerian

Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

1. Critiques of Thayerianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584

III. CHEVRON AND ORIGINALISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

A. Originalist Arguments Against Chevron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

1. Separation-of-Powers Arguments Against Chevron. . . . . 587

2. Historical Arguments Against Chevron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

B. Originalist Arguments in Favor of Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589

1. Separation-of-Powers Arguments in Favor of Chevron . . 589

a. Traditional Understandings of Executive Power

Support Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589

b. Traditional Delegation Principles Endorse

Chevron’s Assumed Legislative Delegation . . . . . 593

c. Traditional Conceptions of Judicial Review and

the Principles Underlying Mandamus Support

Restrained Judicial Review of Executive

Discretion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

2. Longstanding Interpretive Canons Support Chevron . . . . 597

3. Construction-Zone Arguments in Favor of Chevron . . . . 598

C. Responding to Justice Gorsuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601

574 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 19:573