Inside EPA Features B&C Commentary in Article “EPA Critics Cite High Court ‘Deference’ Statements To Oppose Major Rules”

The March 27, 2015 issue of Inside EPA featured commentary from B&C in an article reporting on the perceived increasing divide on the Supreme Court about the level of deference to give EPA and other agencies in their statutory and regulatory powers, and the use of the justices’ recent statements by plaintiffs and others to argue for stricter judicial oversight of EPA rules.

Meanwhile, a March 16 blog post by the law firm Bergeson & Campbell says even the majority opinion in Perez could weaken both Auer and an earlier case giving agencies deference on rule interpretations, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.

“t is possible that the Perez decision could ultimately undermine Seminole Rock, a case that has encouraged reviewing courts to give administrative agencies a high degree of discretion when interpreting ambiguous provisions in their own rules. After all, when the agency is free to resolve clearly such ambiguities through amendments adopted through notice and comment rulemaking, there may be less justification for resolving the same ambiguities through nonbinding interpretations,” the post says.