Auer In Action: Deference After Talk America,” By Cynthia Barmore

Organize the paragraph by “____ does/does not meet _____ criteria.” For instance, an article attributing the cause of childhood obesity to fast food restaurants might succeed in meeting one of the criteria (showing that the problem exists), but fail in meeting another of the criteria (showing that fast food is the logical cause of the problem).

Discuss how the writer succeeds/fails/has mixed results in this particular area, and then prove that your assessment is valid by referring to specific passages and analyzing why these passages mean what you say they mean. To use the same example, the writer might have succeeded in providing evidence by using statistics from the CDC and WHO to document the rise in rates of obesity in children, but used fallacious reasoning by failing to take into consideration other causes of childhood obesity (sedentary lifestyle; genetic and metabolic factors).

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Auer In Action: Deference After Talk America,” By Cynthia Barmore
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Once you have gone through these steps for all of the criteria that indicate proper argumentation, construct a thesis that reflects your overall findings. “Article X is a success/a failure/only a limited success because it achieves/fails to achieve/only partly achieves its aim to _
Auer Deference
Institutional Affiliation
Auer In Action: Deference After Talk America,” By Cynthia Barmore
Barmore’s article does meet the criteria of synthesizing its research findings on the emerging literature concerning Auer deference. The article discusses how federal courts of appeals have been applying Auer and their reactions to the Court’srecent Auer decisions. Considering an original data set of 190 cases, which also include Auer cases whose decisions have been given by the Courts of Appeals science 2011, the article can get research findings that represent what is happening in the respective field (Synder, 2019).
First, the article discusses the Auer discussion’s conceptual background to ensure the reader gets an overview of the standard arguments that agreed or disagreed with Auer. It also brought in the recent Court’s jurisprudence on Auer. His research points out for three years since the Auer’s decision inception; the courts would apply it remarkably in around 82.3% of the cases. However, the rate would fall to 70.6% of the cases after the 2013 decision made in Decker v Northwest Environmental Defense Center (Barmore, 2015). The reduced application rates were mainly because the Auer decision was considered a form of super-deference requiring courts to incorporate ill-seasoned interpretations adopted by agencies. Currently, the courts of appeals will utilize a variety of tools to reject inappropriate agency interpretations. The lessons from this trend as pointed out by Barmore (2015) as to why courts would choose to apply or not apply the doctrine included that the courts are granting the Auer deference using out as a shortcut to avoid the lengthy regulatory analysis or to exercise a reasonable exercise of discretion in handling an unanswered policy question. Those that rejected the doctrine indicate that the deference was an erroneous and inconsistent decision with the regulations.
The article then brings in the lessons from the data before finally weighing the costs and benefits of Auer to bring in primary settings. The courts are allowed to implement or reject the Auer decision framework. The narrowing doctrine remains good law, and courts will continue to treat it despite not applying it. Citing the application rates at 80.6% after talk America and reaching 74.4% after Christopher and finally 70.6% after the Decker decision, it is evident that it is no longer the preferred form of deference by courts (Barmore, 2015). The sample of cases from the true population was sufficient to inform this finding, and thus a statistically significant decline is evident. Notably, the decline is not affiliated with any political ideology considering that both Republican and Democratic presidents have appointed most judges who have not applied it.
The article’s information also demonstrates that there are distinct variations in how the Auer decision is applied. For instance, the courts will defer to some agencies more than others, while some agencies will also utilize the Auer doctrine more than others. Regarding Circuits, the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, which are the most conservative courts of appeals, have been seen to readily grant the Auer decision at a rate of 91% compared to the liberal Ninth Circuit at just 72% (Barmore, 2015). In these applications or lack of applications, the courts will cite distinct reasons for doing so. The Auer doctrine could have been used to inform their case conclusions, while others utilize it as the sole basis for their decisions. Various approaches will be adopted to look into agency interpretations.
Barmore’s article is a success in understanding the current position of incorporation of the Auer decision in agency interpretations by Courts. One could understand why the Skidmore decision could be considered to replace the former. However, what is evident is that the two have their similarities and limits. Whether the Court chooses to implement, little changes should be expected in the overall turnout of cases. Auer’s decision contains its risks and benefits, but the problem remains on which solution, together with its costs, will be relatively comparable to the issue at hand.

Barmore, C. (2015). Auer in Action: Deference After Talk America. Ohio St. LJ, 76, 813.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.