Auer v. Robbins

Definition

Auer v. Robbins is a significant Supreme Court case from 1997 that established the principle of deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations. This case clarified how courts should handle situations where an agency's interpretation of its own rules is challenged, specifically in the context of minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless the interpretation is 'plainly erroneous' or inconsistent with the regulation.
2. Auer v. Robbins involved police officers challenging the application of a specific regulation regarding overtime pay, raising questions about the interpretation of 'work' under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
3. The decision emphasized the importance of agencies being able to interpret their own regulations effectively, recognizing their expertise in specific fields.
4. This case reinforced the concept of Auer deference, which has been cited in various subsequent cases involving agency interpretations.
5. Auer v. Robbins is often discussed in relation to how administrative agencies balance enforcement of regulations with providing clarity for employers and employees.

Review Questions

• How did Auer v. Robbins influence the way courts interpret agency regulations?
  • Auer v. Robbins influenced court interpretations by establishing that courts should generally defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. This principle helps ensure that agencies maintain authority over their rules and can adapt their interpretations based on practical experience and changing circumstances. By affirming this deference, the Supreme Court recognized the specialized knowledge that agencies possess regarding their own regulations, ultimately fostering a more consistent application of law.
• What are some implications of Auer deference for minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
  • The implications of Auer deference for minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act are significant, as it allows agencies like the Department of Labor to interpret and enforce wage regulations without extensive judicial interference. This can lead to quicker adjustments in policies to reflect economic changes or labor market conditions. However, it also raises concerns about accountability and transparency, as agency interpretations may not always align with public expectations or fairness principles.
• Evaluate the potential impact of Auer v. Robbins on future regulatory interpretations and employee protections.
  • The potential impact of Auer v. Robbins on future regulatory interpretations is profound, as it solidifies agency power in defining compliance with labor laws, potentially shaping employee protections. While this can enhance efficiency and adaptability in regulatory enforcement, it also risks undermining employee rights if agencies prioritize expedience over strict adherence to fair labor standards. As such, ongoing scrutiny and discussion about Auer deference remain crucial in balancing effective regulation with robust protection for workers.

Related terms

Fair Labor Standards Act:

A federal law that sets minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards for full-time and part-time workers in both the private and public sectors.

Chevron deference: A legal doctrine that compels courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable.

Administrative Procedure Act: A law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations, ensuring transparency and public participation in rulemaking.