Date Written: March 9th, 2016
Written For: GCU ADM 636
Written For: GCU ADM 636
Agency
Discretion: Precedence as Set by the Chevron
Decision
Laws
are set in place to guide the Federal Government and Supreme Court as well as
lower courts so that they may reach a decision that is fair and impartial to
all involved. These laws, however, are
not always able to predict all cases that might arise. When this happens, agency discretion comes
into play, as it gives the agency the ability to reach a decision that helps
set precedence. This ability, as set by
the Chevron decision, has led to
controversy but also given power to agencies that was previously not standard.
The Chevron
Decision
The Chevron decision emerged after the case of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., in which questions as to various points of
communications acts came into play. This
then lead to the question of agency power. Government oversight has been a
concern from its inception. The thought
of a government having absolute power over all decisions and all agencies sets
the stage for dictatorship. With the Chevron decision, these fears became
less pertinent as it gave agencies the ability to apply reasonable discretion
to their own decisions. This discretion empowers the agency while removing
overcrowding from an already backed up court system.
The
deference that this decision gives the agencies also creates a bond between
agency and the courts as it shows a willingness to relinquish power.
Understanding that, “Chevron deference
is extended to agencies when they interpret statutes through their own rules”,
one can assess that an agency that is thoroughly versed in its own policies will
be able to successfully mitigate any unforeseen issues that might crop up (Hall,
2015, p. 63). Furthermore, an agency that is able to self-sustain its decisions
becomes an agency that is able to withhold standards throughout future cases
and sets precedence that other agencies might not be able to sustain without
thoroughly understood logical decisions[S1] .
Discretion and Deference in Play
The
Chevron decision has had an impact on many cases. One of those high profile cases was that of
Elian Gonzalez. When he was six years
old, Elian and his mother were on a boat from Cuba with other refugees. The boat capsized leaving Elian as the lone
survivor. As Elian was a minor, this led
to controversy as to whether he could apply for asylum or whether he had to be
returned to his father’s custody in Cuba. As the asylum request fell into the jurisdiction
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and there was no laws set to deal
with the issue, it was up to the agency to use both deference and discretion to
reach a decision as to his fate.
Discretion and deference together make up
choice and give agencies the ability to take control of their direct areas. As
noted by Hall in relation the Chevron decision, “when it appears that Congress
delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of
law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in
the exercise of that authority” (Hall, 2015, p. 63). Relating this back to
Gonzalez v. Reno, by which the Elian Gonzalez case is referred, it seems that
the INS, using its given ability from Congress, made a decision that best
suited the needs of the organization as well as held as close to the law as
possible. In using their discretion and
deference, the INS protected itself from future decisions of this suit and
reached a decision that was held without emotion, but instead was made through logic.
In fact, larger courts, such as the Appeals Court, note that they did not fully
agree with decisions as made, “but ‘the responsibilities for assessing the
wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between views of the
public interest are not judicial ones’ rather they belong to the ‘political
branches’” (Dillman, 2002, p. 182). The decision to send Elian home to be with
his father and to void out his asylum request, while emotional, was still
understood as a choice best for the future of the INS and asylum cases. With
this in mind, by making the decision with logical concepts, the INS achieved a
milestone decision[S2] .
The Future of Agency Discretion
While some may argue adamantly
for or against agency discretion, as of now, it appears that it is here to say
in the administrative decision process.
The bond it creates between agencies and the courts is one of mutual
respect. It gives agencies a chance to
prove that they are hearty and logical and it gives courts the ability to focus
on cases that require more focus. The largest concern as to agency discretion
is that, “unquestionably, excessive and unchecked discretion can lead to
arbitrary decision making” (Hall, 2015, p. 54).
Assuming that all agencies will use fair and impartial decision making
is naïve as it relies on the ethics of human nature. There are some cases in which discretion
needs to be removed, such as law-focused agencies. However, the ability to make decisions that
are best for an agency with certain focuses is key to the agencies success[S3] .
Conclusion
Whether an agency
employees their ability to use discretion or not, decisions such as in the Chevron case have set precedence for
future cases to be understood on an individual basis. This individual
understanding of a case allows those who are more versed in the circumstances
and situations of the case to make a decision that will benefit all involved to
the best of their ability. In order to
achieve such a benefit, an agency must be able to use deference and discretion
in tandem. Furthermore, a well-thought
out, logical decision can set the standard for future decisions across
different agencies.
References
Dillman, D. L. (2002). The paradox of discretion and the case of Elian
Gonzalez. Public Organization Review, (2), 165-185. Retrieved March 7,
2016, from
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=16780901&site=eds-live&scope=site
Hall, D. (2015). Administrative
law: Bureaucracy in a democracy (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
