Judicial scrutiny of administrative statutory interpretation: a comparative perspective.

Abstract

Supporters of the proposed Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016 must envy the record of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in scrutinizing administrative interpretation. In a nutshell, English case law demands that administrative officials provide an interpretation that is legally “correct” in the eyes of a reviewing court (Council of Civil Service Unions), on the basis of the presumption that Parliament will rarely, if ever, intend to confer on administrators the competence to determine questions of law with finality. Any unilateral attempt by Congress to impose de novo review statutorily, before addressing the political dynamics that impelled Chevron in the first place, is bound to be futile, if not downright counter-productive.