Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

Agencies often rely on interpretive rules to claim broad powers, and courts historically grant deference under Chevron when statutes are ambiguous. Yet the path to rejection rests on a careful, rigorous approach: show that an interpretation misreads the statutory scheme, contradicts the agency’s own governing text, or supplants congressional intent with policy preferences. Start by pinpointing exact statutory language, considering context, structure, and purpose. Then map out why the agency’s interpretation creates tension with neighboring provisions or with established administrative practice. A robust challenge rests not on general dissatisfaction, but on precise, documentable misalignment between statute and interpretation, supported by credible evidence and persuasive logic.

To elevate your challenge, gather every relevant statute, regulation, and prior agency position. Demonstrate how the interpretation departs from the ordinary meaning of key terms, or how it privileges a particular policy choice without statutory authorization. Articulating a coherent hierarchy of textual cues helps judges see where the agency overreaches. Also consider the agency’s briefing history and public statements, which may reveal an inconsistency with statutory aims. A successful rejection often hinges on exposing a pattern: a recurrent inclination to read ambiguity as license. In parallel, construct an alternative reading aligned with Congress’s intent and the text’s plain grammar, creating a persuasive counter-narrative.

Judicial review becomes most effective when the challenger frames the issue as a statutory misfit rather than a policy dispute. Courts tend to respect careful textual analysis and the coherence of statutory structure. Your argument should trace ambiguities to concrete drafting choices rather than abstract impressions. Offer a precise comparison between the agency’s position and the statutory text, with citations to related provisions and public statutes. Include a numeric or logical demonstration of how the agency’s interpretation leads to absurd or unintended consequences. The aim is to persuade by showing that the interpretive leap cannot be sustained within the legislative framework.

Beyond textual alignment, analyze the agency’s interpretive methodology. Chevron’s first step looks for ambiguity, but the second step requires a reasonable approach. If the agency’s method relies on novel policy judgments, show why those judgments lack statutory footing or rely on hidden policy preferences. Scrutinize the interpretive rulemaking process for compliance with notice-and-comment requirements, data sources, and reliance on conclusory assertions. A well-grounded argument emphasizes methodological flaws, including over-generalization, cherry-picked authorities, or failure to justify departures from precedent. This disciplined critique often resonates with courts seeking restraint and fidelity to law.

Another powerful tactic is to emphasize the absence of ambiguity. If the statute’s language is unambiguous when read in ordinary usage, deja-vu reviews seldom grant Chevron deference. Prepare a tight, line-by-line reading that demonstrates how every phrase carries weight and how syntactic boundaries govern meaning. In your briefing, provide parallel translations from other sections to show consistency. This method helps judges imagine a consistent statutory constellation rather than scattered interpretive shortcuts. A rejection under step one strengthens your case for curbing or eliminating deference, narrowing the scope for administrative interpretation to literal statutory boundaries.

Consider the role of agency structure and function. If an agency’s interpretation reorganizes powers that belong elsewhere or encroaches on congressional prerogatives, courts may view it as a structural overreach. Argue that deference should be tempered or foregone when the agency reorganizes responsibilities in ways not contemplated by Congress. This angle invites judges to scrutinize not just the textual fit, but the practical consequences and governance implications. A persuasive argument shows how such an interpretation upends established checks and balances, undermining the agency’s accountability to the legislature and the public.

In your petition or briefing, weave in practical consequences for regulated parties. Demonstrating real-world impact makes the theoretical critique tangible. If the agency’s interpretation creates inconsistent treatment, imposes costs, or produces uncertain standards, highlight those effects with concrete, documentable examples. Drawing on administrative records, industry practice, and affected individuals’ experiences enriches the narrative. Courts often favor litigants who present usable consequences rather than abstract doctrinal debates. The goal is to translate legal theory into a narrative of fairness, predictability, and lawful administration that judges can readily evaluate in the context of the broader statutory scheme.

Parallelly, assess the agency’s reliance on interpretive doctrines that may be ripe for rejection. If the agency relies on dicta, guidance without binding effect, or policy statements that lack rigorous statutory grounding, argue for a more restraint-based approach. Elevate the normative claim that deference should be reserved for interpretations squarely supported by Congress’s language and purpose. A careful demonstration of where guidance exceeds its legal authority often persuades courts to apply higher scrutiny or strike down overbroad readings, preserving the integrity of statutory limits.

When preparing for oral argument, practice crisp, targeted responses to anticipated lines of defense. Anticipate counterarguments about deference’s stability or the agency’s expertise, and respond with a disciplined contrast of statutory coherence versus policy agility. Your oral presentation should stay anchored in the statute’s text, avoiding rhetorical embellishments that can undermine credibility. A calm, principled tone helps judges perceive you as someone who respects institutional ends while insisting on lawful means. Strong advocacy blends textual exegesis with an organized, issue-focused narrative that makes the case memorable.

After establishing a solid textual and methodological base, discuss remedies and judicial relief. Propose a pathway that curbs overly expansive interpretations without severing agency functions entirely. Options include remand with instructions to align the interpretation with statutory limits, or a narrow reading that preserves regulatory goals while respecting Congress’s binding language. A well-structured proposal demonstrates not only why the current interpretation is improper, but also how the courts can restore statutory balance without undermining legitimate regulatory objectives.

Beyond specific cases, this framework equips practitioners to tackle Chevron deference across agencies. Apply a consistent method: verify ambiguity, examine interpretive methodology, assess structural considerations, and articulate practical consequences. Build a record that intertwines textual analysis with real-world impact, then push for narrow readings or remand when necessary. The discipline of rigorous briefing, thorough record-building, and clear argumentation increases the likelihood that a court will adopt a restrained approach to agency interpretations, aligning admin practice with constitutional and statutory design.

As you navigate judicial review, remember that success rests on credible evidence, precise language, and disciplined advocacy. Judges respond to arguments that stay within the statutory frame while highlighting the agency’s overreach or misalignment. By combining careful textual interpretation, methodological scrutiny, and governance-centered concerns, you can craft a persuasive rejection of broad Chevron deference. This approach not only advances a favorable outcome in a given case, but also contributes to a more predictable and accountable administrative law landscape.