Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172954
 
 

Footnotes (12)



 


 



Interpreting Regulations


Kevin M. Stack


Vanderbilt University - Law School

November 5, 2012

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 111, No. 3, 2012
Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 12-38

Abstract:     
The age of statutes has given way to an era of regulations, but our jurisprudence has fallen behind. Despite the centrality of regulations to law, courts have no intelligible approach to regulatory interpretation. The neglect of regulatory interpretation is not only a shortcoming in interpretive theory but also a practical problem for administrative law. Canonical doctrines of administrative law — Chevron, Seminole Rock/Auer, and Accardi — involve interpreting regulations, and yet courts lack a consistent approach.

This Article develops a method for interpreting regulations and, more generally, situates regulatory interpretation within debates over legal interpretation. It argues that a purposive approach, not a textualist one, best suits the distinctive legal character of regulations. Administrative law requires agencies to produce detailed explanations of the grounds for their regulations, called statements of basis and purpose. Courts routinely use these statements to assess the validity of regulations. This Article argues that these statements should guide judicial interpretation of regulations as well. By relying on these statements as privileged sources for interpretation, courts not only grant deference to agencies but also treat these statements as creating commitments with respect to a regulation’s meaning. This approach justifies a framework for interpreting regulations under Chevron, Seminole Rock/Auer, and Accardi that is consistent with the deferential grounding of these doctrines, and provides more notice to those regulated than does relying on the regulation’s text alone.

This Article also shows how regulatory purposivism constitutes a new foothold for Henry Hart and Albert Sacks’s classic legal process account of purposivism. Hart and Sacks’s theory is vulnerable to the criticism that discerning statutory purpose is elusive because statutes do not often include enacted statements of purpose. Regulatory purposivism, however, avoids this concern because statements of basis and purpose offer a consistent and reliable source for discerning a regulation’s purpose. From this perspective, the best days for Hart and Sacks’s legal process theory may be ahead.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 69

Keywords: interpretation, purposivism, textualism, regulation, Hart & Sacks, Legal Process, Chevron, Auer, Seminole Rock, Accardi, interpretive theory, hard look review

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: November 9, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Stack, Kevin M., Interpreting Regulations (November 5, 2012). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 111, No. 3, 2012; Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 12-38. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172954

Contact Information

Kevin M. Stack (Contact Author)
Vanderbilt University - Law School ( email )
131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 981
Downloads: 252
Download Rank: 70,291
Footnotes:  12

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.578 seconds