Just before the end of 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors. In TWISM, the Court took steps similar to those taken by the United States Supreme Court when chipping away at the Chevron doctrine by limiting the scope and power of the rule that courts should defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute when the administrative agency is tasked with enforcing that statute.
The Ohio Supreme Court explained that Ohio’s courts had not carefully fashioned a deference doctrine and the doctrine had fractured into three dueling standards. The Court overruled the lesser-cited cases holding that courts will uphold an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute regardless of ambiguity, and the high Court also overruled the more commonly cited precedent that courts will uphold an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Having rejected those iterations of the deference doctrine that afford greater weight to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute, the Court held that an administrative agency’s interpretation should remain one tool in a court’s interpretive toolbox, but no more than that. The Court thereby removed the elevated status that agency interpretations have enjoyed in the statutory-interpretation realm.
The downside of this precedent is that companies and individuals bound by laws interpreted by agencies now have less certainty in how to go about their business—after all, they can no longer rely on the agency’s interpretation as final; the upside is that companies previously governed by an agency’s restrictive but reasonable interpretation of a statutory scheme now have a greater chance of success in challenging the agency’s interpretation.
Given this change in the landscape, one would expect a greater number of challenges to agency interpretations of statutes in the coming months and years. And the stakes are higher now that courts have returned to their pre-Chevron role of deciding what the law is without deference to agencies.
Should you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Paul Kerridge or a member of KMK Law’s litigation team.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
© 2023 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- Securities Law
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Stock Drop
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Securities Litigation
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- Electronically Stored Information
- Business Process Improvement
- Employment Litigation
- Receivership Statute
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Construction Litigation
- Federal Rule
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!