In this episode, Gwen and Marc step back from Chevron to examine the older doctrine that both preceded it and now survives it: Skidmore deference. They begin with a medical analogy that contrasts expert judgment grounded in examination and experience with advice that merely sounds confident—setting up the central question of Skidmore: when agencies lack the power to control, how much weight should courts give to what they say?
They walk through Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a 1944 case involving firemen at a meatpacking plant and whether on-call waiting time counts as compensable work. The key issue was not disagreement over expertise, but authority: the agency administering the Fair Labor Standards Act had issued extensive guidance but lacked formal rulemaking power. The Court’s response—giving agency interpretations weight proportional to their persuasiveness—created a doctrine that applied specifically when agencies lacked the force of law.
From there, Gwen and Marc situate Skidmore in historical context, contrasting it with highly deferential cases like Yakus v. United States and showing that Skidmore was never meant to replace strong deference where Congress had delegated rulemaking authority. They then explain how Skidmore operates in practice through its familiar factors—thoroughness, reasoning, consistency, and expertise—and why it creates flexibility at the cost of predictability.
The episode closes by tracing Skidmore’s resurgence after United States v. Mead Corp., which limited Chevron to actions with the force of law and returned Skidmore to center stage for guidance documents, opinion letters, and other informal agency actions. This episode sets up the post-Chevron world by explaining what kind of deference remains—and what has been lost.
What They Cover in This Episode
