Chief Justice Marshall famously stated in Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Decades ago, Professor Benard Schwartz's lectures highlighted how the doctrine of separation of powers had been fundamentally altered as society became more complex.

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments that could lead to significant changes in administrative law. The court is considering whether to overrule or modify Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a landmark case that has shaped administrative law for decades.

In Chevron, the Supreme Court held that when a statute is silent or ambiguous, an administrative agency's interpretation should be given deference if it is reasonable. If the court decides to overturn Chevron, it would shift the responsibility for interpreting ambiguous laws from administrative agencies to the courts. However, if the court chooses to modify Chevron, it could mean that deference would only apply to ambiguous statutes, not those with gaps or silence.

This course examines the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision on the doctrine of administrative deference and the separation of powers.