Courts Must Reassert Control Over Administrative Agencies

Those who hold the reins of political power will not always be benevolent, self-restrained public servants —and the procedural safeguards that seem frustrating and counterproductive in one instance may very well be necessary bulwarks in another.Those safeguards are undermined by the Supreme Court ’s requirement that courts give deference to a regulatory agency’s interpretation of its own rules. Under this principle, most recently enunciated inAuer v. Robbins  (1997), agencies can change their minds on how to enforce the law without so much as giving the public notice.Consider James Kisor, a Vietnam veteran whose claim for disability benefits hinged on the interpretation of the term “relevant” in the Board of Veterans Appeals rules of procedure. The Department of Veterans Affairs last amended its rules in a more formal notice-and-comment proceeding in the mid-2000s. During such a process, agencies seek input from the public on proposed rules. During that rulemaking, the VA could have defined evidentiary “relevance,” but it declined to do so. Only when the board denied Kisor’s full claim—eight years later—did the agency announce its interpretation unprompted and without having been briefed on the matter. Obviously, Kisor was given no advance notice of the new “rule”—which was really just a new semantic wrinkle—much less the opportunity to participate in the formulation of regulations that ultimately would curtail his rights.Mr. Kisor appealed the de...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs