I don’t think, at least here, they are binding Administratively, though this just references the Courts.
This is from the Ohio AG website;
What is the significance of an Attorney General opinion?
Attorney General opinions provide valuable advice to public officials and are useful in guiding the actions of those officials. Although Attorney General opinions are not binding on the courts, courts usually give formal opinions careful consideration
Not exactly. If we’re talking federal courts, agency interpretations of statutes is given deference, but it is not necessarily binding. Courts apply the Chevron rule, in effect giving the judiciary the final say on statutory interpretation.
You misread my post. Chevron deference is for agency interpretations of statutes within their sphere of operations, not regulations.
I’m not sure i understand. I thought that in the US, regulations are based on the executive branch’s interpretation of the statute. If so, is the executive branch’s interpretation of the statute binding on the admin agency, and therefore on the courts? Can the courts not reach a different interpretation of the statute, and therefore also disagree with the executive branch’s interpretation of the Regulations?
Your understanding is essentially correct. Agency interpretations of statutes are given deference, as noted above, but they are still subject to review under the Chevron rules. Even agency interpretations of their own regulations (for example, in the form of administrative rulings), while given more deference, are still ultimately not binding on the courts.
Somewhat pertinent to the discussion about AG opinions at the federal level is Gonzales v. Oregon. AG John Ashcroft issued an interpretive ruling restricting the use of controlled substances by physicians in assisted suicides, based on his reading of a federal statute (the Controlled Substances Act). This didn’t sit well with physicians and supporters of an Oregon State law legalizing physician-assisted suicide. SCOTUS explains that it only follows agency rules to the extent it is persuasive, finds that the interpretative ruling was unpersuasive in this case, and rules that the AG interpretation is essentially incorrect.
There are two types of regulation. One is supplementary, and fills in a hole in a statute (for example, where the legislature fails to define a term used). The other might be called substantive, where the legislature specifically delegates rulemaking authority (“…in accordance with such rules and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe” or words to that effect.)
Supplementary regulations are an agency’s interpretation of a statute. They are entitled to deference under Chevron where administration of the statutory scheme is clearly left to the agency (for example, the EPA’s construction of the Clean Water Act.) They aren’t binding on the courts, but the courts must accept a construction adopted by the agency which does not conflict with the statute.
However, agencies’ interpretations of their own substantive regulations are reviewed only for abuse of discretion* under the Administrative Procedures Act. This is sometimes referred to as deference but in practice it’s binding.
*Either in the sense that a regulation does in fact directly conflict with the enabling legislation, or that it conflicts with the Constitution.