What level of deference do reviewing courts typically give to legal issues decided by an administrative agency?

In administrative law, reviewing courts generally afford a significant amount of deference to the interpretations and decisions of administrative agencies regarding legal issues. This principle stems from the understanding that agencies possess specialized expertise and experience in their respective areas, which positions them uniquely to make informed decisions based on their regulatory framework and policy objectives.

This deference is most often seen in cases involving the interpretation of statutes that the agency is charged with enforcing. Courts recognize that the agency's technical knowledge and policy discretion should inform its judgments, making them better suited than the judiciary to weigh the complexities and nuances that underlie various regulatory issues.

The commonly cited standard for this deference is known as "Chevron deference," from the landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This standard instructs courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, provided the interpretation is within the agency's jurisdiction and lawful authority.

In contrast to this great deference, reviewing courts may apply lesser degrees of scrutiny depending on the context and the nature of the issue at hand. For example, legal interpretations might receive less deference if the agency is acting outside its established expertise or if the interpretation contradicts clear statutory text. Nonetheless, the prevailing principle