This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Justice John Paul Stevens's 1984 opinion for a unanimous court fundamentally altered the existing jurisprudence regarding the deference owed decisions of administrative agencies by reviewing courts.

By doing so, the Chevron doctrine - as the new deference standard quickly came to be known - has facilitated the ongoing expansion of the modern regulatory state.

Chevron's citation in law review articles rivals Marbury v. Madison. At first blush, this may seem surprising. But not when you consider that the Chevron doctrine impacts relations among Congress, the executive branch and the courts - just as Marbury did.

.   .   .

To the extent that the Chevron doctrine - the counter-Marbury - in fact facilitates aggrandizement of power by government officials all too eager to expand administrative authority, there is a ready remedy. Congress can choose to legislate in a way that makes its intent unmistakably clear. Remember, absent ambiguity in the statute, a reviewing court never reaches the question of how much deference is due the agency's own interpretation.