•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Part II of the Article outlines the procedures required by the APA for agency adjudications. Part III discusses the three primary approaches that courts have followed to determine what triggers formal adjudicatory procedures and introduces the Chevron doctrine. Part IV examines how courts review agency interpretations of statutory provisions under Chevron and its progeny and explores two issues on the fringes of Chevron's domain-interpretations of agency jurisdiction and judicial review provisions-and the concerns that they raise. Next, using lessons from these analogous issues, Part V analyzes similar concerns about congressional intent, institutional competency, agency self-interest, and fairness in the procedural provision context. It then advocates for a contextual approach to judicial review, which rejects mandatory deference, and proposes an analytical framework for such review based on factors related to the goals served by procedural formalities. Part V argues that this is the best approach available to provide long-needed guidance to the courts. In Part VI, the Article concludes that courts, not agencies, should be the final interpreters of procedural provisions in enabling statutes.

Share

COinS