The phrase "agencies interpretation" is not correct in written English.
It should be "agency's interpretation" or "agencies' interpretation" depending on the intended meaning.
Example: "The agency's interpretation of the regulations was challenged in court."
Alternatives: "interpretation by agencies" or "interpretation of agencies".
Courts also give a certain deference to federal agencies' interpretation of relevant federal laws -- for instance, to the E.P.A.'s view of the Clean Air Act -- and lawyers on both sides say the states would not receive the same deference.
The recent trajectory of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of sex, may be instructive, especially because courts' and agencies' interpretation of Title IX has drawn heavily from Title VII case law.
He has been skeptical of a judicial doctrine whereby government agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes prevails unless it is unreasonable the so-called Chevron deference.
For example, when reviewing challenges to administrative agencies' interpretations of laws they implement, we defer to the agencies unless their interpretation violates "the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress".
The courts have not much curbed this, following a 1984 Supreme Court ruling — Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council — that judges should give "deference" to executive agencies' interpretations unless their rules are clearly unreasonable.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the regulation was a "manifestly reasonable" interpretation of the Clean Water Act and was therefore entitled to the deference the Court usually gives to executive branch agencies' interpretations of their statutory authority.
Later this month, the court will hear arguments about whether to overrule two important administrative law decisions that generally require judges to defer to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations.
Since then, led by the Supreme Court in its post-New Deal stance toward agency discretion, federal courts have generally deferred to administrative agencies' interpretations of their authority under their governing statutes, many of which are as open-ended as the Clean Air Act, if not more so.
Some Republican lawmakers also want legislation that would stop courts from deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of statutes — a practice known as "Chevron deference," after the 1984 Supreme Court case that went against the energy company — and have them instead defer to Congress.
Auer deference expands upon Chevron to require the court to defer to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations.
Because China is a civil law country, often the generalities of the national law are fleshed out in various agencies' "interpretations".
