杰克·比尔曼在众议院小组委员会作证

The Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law offered his expertise on the 雪佛龙公司 Doctrine.

Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law 杰克Beermann testified twice this year before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

The two hearings, on March 15 and May 17, addressed the Supreme Court’s 雪佛龙公司 doctrine, which holds that courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are unreasonable. The first hearing, chaired by Tom Marino (R-PA), was entitled “The 雪佛龙公司 Doctrine: Constitutional and Statutory Questions in Judicial Deference to Agencies.” The committee heard testimony from a number of legal scholars on the 雪佛龙公司 doctrine and to what extent federal courts should defer to federal agency decisions construing the statutes they administer. 马里诺主席在一份声明中指出，“这场辩论的核心问题是，在解释国会通过的法规时，官员应该有多大的回旋余地。” […]这次听证会将使国会在正确执行法律时必须做些什么来减轻混乱的问题更加明确。”

The 雪佛龙公司 doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 decision, 雪佛龙美国公司诉自然资源保护委员会案. 这一裁决对法定推定机关决定的审查产生了相当大的影响。 At the first hearing, Beermann argued that the 雪佛龙公司 decision has created a considerable amount of uncertainty in major decisions concerning the distribution of authority among the branches of the federal government and that it has not provided a sound decision framework for review of agency statutory interpretation.

“雪佛龙公司 is a distraction from what should be the two key issues in judicial review: congressional intent and sensible policy,” he said in his testimony.

比尔曼建议在1946年的《行政程序法》（APA）中增加文字，使法官在机构对法规的解释方面具有更大的灵活性。 He envisioned courts applying the pre-APA standard established in the Supreme Court’s 1944 case 斯基德莫尔诉斯威夫特公司案, which held that courts ought to determine the weight due an agency’s interpretation through a test based on the four criteria of “consistency, deliberation, thoroughness, and persuasiveness.” Under the 斯基德莫尔 standard, the reviewing court would decide on all questions of law with regard for the views of the agency administering the statute and any other agency involved in the decision making process.

With the 斯基德莫尔 standard, according to Beermann, courts would have the flexibility to shape the deference doctrine to meet modern concerns and legal doctrine. The implementation of 斯基德莫尔, as he stated, “would head off the extreme deference to agencies that in my opinion often thwart serious examination of congressional intent.”

The second hearing addressed the proposed 2016年权力分立恢复法案，HR 4768. In his testimony, Beermann critiqued the legislation, calling it “a complete reversal of 雪佛龙公司 and related doctrines.” He suggested the proposed bill “may go too far” in trying to fix the problems created by 雪佛龙公司, arguing that the bill “would disable reviewing courts from taking into account the views of an administering agency on questions of statutory interpretation and make it difficult for Congress to allow deference to administering agencies when appropriate.”

As a middle ground between 雪佛龙公司 and HR 4768, Beermann reiterated his proposal to return to the 斯基德莫尔 standard: “While pre-雪佛龙公司 practice under 斯基德莫尔 may not have been perfect, by preserving flexibility it would place Congress in charge of the degree to which reviewing courts should defer to agency legal conclusions and would allow Congress to calibrate that deference rather than wipe it out altogether, which would be the case under HR 4768.”

比尔曼教授在波士顿大学法学院教授行政法超过30年，并撰写或合作撰写了四本书，其中包括一本广泛使用的案例手册和伊曼纽尔法律大纲。 Beermann’s first article attacking 雪佛龙公司, published in 2010, was entitled “End the Failed 雪佛龙公司 Experiment Now: How 雪佛龙公司 Has Failed and Why It Can and Should Be Overruled.” In it, he listed arguments outlining the weaknesses of 雪佛龙公司 and its role in recent court decisions.

In a more recent article, “雪佛龙公司 at the Roberts Court: Still Failing After All These Years,” he examined 雪佛龙公司 deference and the voting records of current Supreme Court Justices under the decision. Observing that the Roberts Court has not succeeded in making 雪佛龙公司 a workable doctrine, Beermann concluded, “For many reasons, the 雪佛龙公司 doctrine is a failure that should be jettisoned at the earliest possible time.”

Reported by Greg Yang (CAS’17) and Trevor Persaud (STH’18).