To what extent may courts review an agency's interpretation of law?

• A. De novo review
• B. Limited review with deference to agency on statutory interpretation and within its own expertise
• C. No review; agency interpretations are final
• D. Review only for constitutional issues

Answer: (B)

Courts apply limited, deferential review to how agencies interpret statutes they administer. If the statutory language is clear, the court uses the plain meaning. If the language is ambiguous, the court defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation, given the agency’s expertise and role in implementing the statute. This balance lets courts ensure consistency with the statute while recognizing the agency’s specialized knowledge.

De novo review would ignore the agency’s role and expertise, so it isn’t correct. No review isn’t correct because courts do assess statutory interpretations. Limiting review to constitutional issues misses the core question of how agencies interpret statutes.