Discover published sets by community

Determines whether the statute is ambiguous concerning the issue a court is evaluating. If the statute is clear, that clarity ends the court's inquiry.

The agency's interpretation need not be the only possible reading of the statute or even the reading the court would have chosen but must fall within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

An initial inquiry to determine if Chevron framework applies at all – it assesses whether the agency interpretation is the kind Congress intended to receive deference.

Congress can update or clarify statutes to limit or refine the scope of ambiguity and thus the reach of Chevron deference.

The doctrine's application may vary based on the regulatory domain, taking into account the expertise of the agency in that specific area.

Courts defer to agencies in recognition of the expertise of the agency officials and the accountability of the executive branch to provide more consistent interpretations.

The anticipation of Chevron deference can encourage agencies to engage in rulemaking rather than case-by-case adjudication.

Critics argue that it shifts too much power to the executive branch, undermines judicial authority, and that it may lead to agencies stretching their jurisdiction.

If the statute is ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency's interpretation as long as it is 'reasonable'.