I've been hearing about "Chevron deference" (mentioned in Mike's post) and wasn't really familiar with it so I finally looked it up. What a load of crap it is!
[h=4]Step one [/h]A court must determine whether Congress expressed intent in the statute and, if so, whether or not the statute's intent is ambiguous.
If the intent of Congress is unambiguous, or clearly stated, then the inquiry must end. Agencies must carry out the clearly expressed intent of Congress.
If, however, the intent of Congress is unclear, or if the statute lacks direct language on a specific point, then a federal court must decide whether the agency interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute—one that is not arbitrary or capricious or obviously contrary to the statute.
[h=4]Step two[/h]In examining the agency's reasonable construction, a court must assess whether the decision of Congress to leave an ambiguity, or fail to include express language on a specific point, was done explicitly or implicitly.
If the decision of Congress was explicit, then the agency’s regulations are binding on federal courts unless those regulations are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute.
If the decision of Congress was implicit, then so long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable, a federal court cannot substitute its own statutory construction superior to the agency's construction.[SUP][[/SUP]