行政法上尊重学说的未来  

The Future of Deference

作　　者： 牛佳蕊(译) 宋华琳(译)[3] Richard J.Pierce,Jr;NIU Jiarui;SONG Hualin

机构地区：[1]美国乔治·华盛顿大学法学院 [2]天津师范大学法学院 [3]南开大学法学院

出　　处：《经贸法律评论》2022年第5期143-158,共16页Business and Economic Law Review

摘　　要：美国法院在斯基德莫尊重的基础上,逐渐发展并衍生了高尊重程度的谢弗林尊重和Auer尊重学说,降低了行政解释在地区上的差异。但法院过高的尊重,削减了司法审查对行政权的监督力度,行政解释质量的日趋下降,引发了美国联邦最高法院诸多法官对谢弗林尊重、Auer尊重的质疑与反对。为了改变或削弱过高尊重造成的不利影响,21世纪以来,美国联邦最高法院在Christensen案、Mead案、Barnhart案中,重新援引了尊重程度较低的斯基德莫尊重,这一举措虽然强化了联邦最高法院的司法监督,却显著降低了巡回法院审查行政解释法律的明晰性与一致性。当前,解决尊重学说所引发问题的可能方案有四种:一是消除所有的尊重学说;二是以斯基德莫尊重取代谢弗林尊重和Auer尊重;三是排除对只是因控制行政分支的政党交替而引起的解释变化的尊重;四是通过实施以上三种选择中的任何一种,削减或消除联邦最高法院对尊重学说的运用,但在巡回法院保留强版本的谢弗林尊重和Auer尊重。On the basis of Skidmore deference, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually developed Chevron deference and Auer deference. Deference theory reduced the regional differences of administrative interpretation. However, these deference theories has reduced the supervision of the judicial review on administrative power. The quality of administrative interpretation has been declining too. Since the 21st century, the Supreme Court re-invoke Skidmore deference in Christensen v. Harris County, United States v. Mead Corp, and Barnhart v.Walton. This behavior strengthened the supervision of the Supreme Court, but the judicial review standards of the circuit court are no longer clear and consistent. At present, there are four possible solutions to the problems caused by deference. One option would be to eliminate all deference doctrines. Another option would be to replace Chevron and Auer deference with Skidmore deference.A third option would be to eliminate deference in contexts in which a change in interpretation is motivated only by a change in the political party that controls the executive branch. A fourth option would be to reduce or eliminate deference in Supreme Court decision making by implementing any of the first three options but retain strong versions of Chevron and Auer deference in circuit courts.

关 键 词：尊重学说 斯基德莫尊重 谢弗林尊重 Auer尊重 

分 类 号：D971.253[政治法律—法学]