Does Chevron Matter?

Abstract:     
In this article we evaluate whether the Supreme Court's much-discussed decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) signaled a lasting difference in how the justices decide administrative law cases by comparing and testing the predictions of three distinct theories of Supreme Court behavior. The legal model predicts an increase in deference to administrative agencies. This prediction is shared by the jurisprudential regime model, which also predicts that the justices evaluate key case factors differently before and after Chevron. The attitudinal model predicts no change in the justices' behavior as a result of Chevron. We find support for the all three models, although the fact that the legal and jurisprudential regime models are supported undermines the assertion of the attitudinal model that law cannot explain Supreme Court votes on the merits.

Note that the published version of this paper is available on Blackwell-Synergy; see http://ssrn.com/abstract=928998.

Keywords: Administrative law, Supreme Court, judicial regimes, deference

JEL Classifications: K23

Accepted Paper Series