What Deference Does it Make? Reviewing Agency Statutory Interpretation in Maryland

Carly L. Hviding

Recent scholarship found that Maryland courts switch between Chevron-like deference and Skidmore-like deference when reviewing agency interpretations of the law. The state courts were criticized for being unable to “make up their mind[s]” about how much weight to give to agency interpretations. Inconsistency in how courts apply the law can be troubling’ and confusing for regulated parties and state agencies. Without knowing how much weight a court will give to an agency interpretation, it may be difficult to predict how a court will rule on a given administrative law issue, and parties may lose confidence in the judiciary for its ad hoc approach to deference.

This Article explores how Maryland courts review agency interpretations of the law. Although recent scholarship found that Maryland courts switch between Chevron-like deference and Skidmore-like deference, a closer look at Maryland administrative law shows that these findings are incorrect. When Maryland courts give weight to an agency interpretation of the law, it almost always resembles federal Skidmore deference. However, in some cases, Maryland courts decline to give any deference to agency interpretations. Thus, the real inconsistency in Maryland is whether courts use Skidmore-like deference or review agency interpretations of the law de novo. 

This Article does not advocate for the adoption of a specific deference doctrine at the state level. Instead, this Article explores Maryland courts’ inconsistencies in reviewing statutory interpretations of the law. Ultimately, this Article proposes that the Maryland Court of Appeals clarify the state deference doctrine to bolster confidence in the judiciary.