How To Win the Deference Lottery
Christopher J. Walker
Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law
January 22, 2013
Texas Law Review See Also, Vol. 91, pp. 73-88, 2013
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 187
In response to Jud Mathews, Deference Lotteries, 91 Texas Law Review 1349 (2013).
In Deference Lotteries, Jud Mathews proposes that the deference framework in administrative law be viewed through the game theory lens of a lottery. Such an approach helps us think critically about how varying standards of review may affect the behavior of agencies and courts engaged in the judicial review process. This Response suggests that the lottery lens can also help agencies think more strategically about how to develop and defend interpretations of statutes they administer. Assuming the validity of the lottery framework, the Response suggests a playbook for agencies to win the deference lottery. As the playbook reveals, this lottery is not a win-or-go-home contest. Instead, it is a repeated game -- a dialogue of sorts between courts and agencies -- where agencies have multiple opportunities to play and replay (and win). The predictive effect of tightening or loosening the lottery thus may not be as strong as one would hope.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 16
Keywords: administrative law, deference, Chevron, Skidmore, judicial review, game theory, bureaucratic politicsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 24, 2013 ; Last revised: May 23, 2014
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.265 seconds