The prevalence of the Chevron doctrine in administrative law has prompted widespread scholarly controversy concerning how the doctrine operates in practice. Three descriptive models have emerged. Some commentators have embraced a contextual model and contend that Chevron is a "revolution on paper" that has failed to replace the traditional contextual approach to judicial review of agency action. Others rely on a political model and maintain that the Chevron doctrine is so indeterminate that it serves primarily as cover for judges who decide cases based on their personal political preferences. Other commentators rely on an interpretive model and insist that Chevron is unstable because textualist judges apply the doctrine differently from judges who reject a textualist approach.
Orin S. Kerr,
Shedding Light on Chevron: An Empirical Study of the Chevron Doctrine in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,
Yale J. on Reg.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol15/iss1/2