Administrative deference in the United States: Kisor and the consolidation of Auer jurisprudence

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    Auer deference, i.e. the extent to which courts defer to an agency?s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, is under the spotlight in the United States. The doctrine has been greatly criticised by both academics and judges concerned about the increase of the power of administrative agencies but in June 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed its constitutionality by a 5-4 majority in Kisor v. Wilkie. Justice Kagan authored the majority opinion and insisted that the Auer doctrine is still alive. Justice Gorsuch, on the other hand, argued in his concurrence that because of the new limitations that Kisor imposes on administrative deference, Auer has become a paper tiger, meaning that it has lost its bite and efficacy. This abstract briefly reviews the Kisor decision and the points raised in the majority opinion. It argues that the decision has not changed the Auer doctrine but instead consolidated its technical aspects.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)311-315
    Number of pages5
    JournalJuris Poiesis
    Issue number29
    Publication statusPublished (VoR) - 13 Sept 2019


    Dive into the research topics of 'Administrative deference in the United States: Kisor and the consolidation of Auer jurisprudence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this