Abstract
In Chevron v. NRDC, the Supreme Court announced a new rule of statutory interpretation in construing regulatory laws: In any case where an act of Congress does not resolve a legal issue, the federal courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. In Auer v. Robbins, the Court applied the same rule to cases where an agency interprets one of its own rules. In each case, the Court effectively transferred lawmaking authority from the Article I legislature or Article III courts to Article II officials. Chevron and Auer also conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Members of the Court have questioned Chevron's validity and reasonableness, but Congress should itself eliminate Chevron and Auer deference.