What is likely to happen when a court reviews an agency's interpretation of a regulation?

When a court reviews an agency's interpretation of a regulation, it often defers to the agency’s interpretation under the principle known as "Chevron deference." This principle comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which established that courts should uphold an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation when the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

Agencies are typically seen as experts in their respective fields, and their interpretations are given significant weight because they possess specialized knowledge and experience. This deference is meant to respect the expertise of regulatory agencies, allowing them latitude in making rules and interpretations that can be complex and nuanced.

In situations where the agency's interpretation is reasonable and falls within the scope of the authority granted to it by Congress, courts are less likely to overturn those interpretations. This reflects a recognition that agencies have the responsibility to implement the legislative intent of statutes through regulations, and they are often better situated to evaluate the practical implications of their interpretations.

The other options—rejecting the interpretation, establishing a new one, or ignoring it—are less common because they do not respect the established principle of deference, which is a cornerstone of administrative law. It’s