What best describes the court's treatment of an agency's interpretation of its governing statute when deciding a case under Article 78?

What best describes the court's treatment of an agency's interpretation of its governing statute when deciding a case under Article 78?

• A. Courts give deference to the agency's interpretation due to its specialized expertise
• B. Courts apply strict textualism with no deference
• C. Courts defer only to federal interpretations
• D. Courts ignore agency interpretations altogether

Answer: (A)

In Article 78 review, courts give deference to how the agency interprets the statute it administers. The reasoning is that the agency has specialized expertise and is charged with implementing and enforcing the statute, so its reading is given weight as long as it is reasonable and fits the statutory framework. The court’s role is to ensure the interpretation isn’t irrational or arbitrary, not to override a reasonable agency reading solely on textualist grounds. This is not about deferring to federal interpretations or ignoring agency interpretations; instead, the court reviews for reasonableness within the agency’s domain. If the agency’s interpretation is rational and consistent with the statute, it will be upheld.

In Article 78 review, courts give deference to how the agency interprets the statute it administers. The reasoning is that the agency has specialized expertise and is charged with implementing and enforcing the statute, so its reading is given weight as long as it is reasonable and fits the statutory framework. The court’s role is to ensure the interpretation isn’t irrational or arbitrary, not to override a reasonable agency reading solely on textualist grounds. This is not about deferring to federal interpretations or ignoring agency interpretations; instead, the court reviews for reasonableness within the agency’s domain. If the agency’s interpretation is rational and consistent with the statute, it will be upheld.