What are the two steps of the Chevron framework in judicial review?

What are the two steps of the Chevron framework in judicial review?

• A. Step 1: determine if the statute is clear; Step 2: if ambiguous, defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
• B. Step 1: determine if the agency is competent; Step 2: strike down if not.
• C. Step 1: review agency procedures; Step 2: ignore statute language.
• D. Step 1: declare agency interpretations controlling; Step 2: review for constitutionality.

Answer: (A)

Chevron deference governs how courts review an agency’s reading of the statutes it administers. The analysis has two steps. First, the court asks whether the statute speaks clearly to the issue. If the language is unambiguous, the court applies the statute’s plain meaning and does not defer to the agency. If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific point, the court moves to the second step and defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute, provided the interpretation is within the agency’s authority and not unreasonable. This framework balances respecting Congress’s intent with leveraging an agency’s expertise in applying broad statutory terms. The other choices mix up the focus or sequence—for example, suggesting the court merely checks competence, or that it should ignore the statute, or treat agency interpretations as controlling without the need to assess reasonableness.

Chevron deference governs how courts review an agency’s reading of the statutes it administers. The analysis has two steps. First, the court asks whether the statute speaks clearly to the issue. If the language is unambiguous, the court applies the statute’s plain meaning and does not defer to the agency. If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific point, the court moves to the second step and defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute, provided the interpretation is within the agency’s authority and not unreasonable. This framework balances respecting Congress’s intent with leveraging an agency’s expertise in applying broad statutory terms. The other choices mix up the focus or sequence—for example, suggesting the court merely checks competence, or that it should ignore the statute, or treat agency interpretations as controlling without the need to assess reasonableness.