How Might the Supreme Court, If It Reviews the Federal Communication\u27s 2015 Open Internet Order, Utilize the Chevron and Arbitrary and Capricious Tests?

The article focuses on two Supreme Court decisions, King v. Burwell and FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations, Inc., that provide diametrically different models for how deferential a court should be when it reviews administrative action. The former case addresses how deferential a court should be for an agency’s statutory interpretation of an ambiguous statute for a question that has significant economic and political effects but Congress had not expressly delegated the question to the agency. The latter case addresses how deferential a court should be when an agency’s changes a policy that is within its statutory authority. These two cases are briefly explained and then applied to the specific circumstances of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order and the 2016 D.C. Circuit’s review of the action. This administrative action involved a reclassification of broadband service and generated substantial public comment and political posturing. If the Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s upholding of the agency action, then there is now a realistic possibility that the Court ignores the agency’s statutory interpretation in its entirety and reserves for itself resolution of the question. However, if the Court grants Chevron deference to the agency, there is a strong probability that it will find the agency’s change in policy a reasonable policy choice

\u3ci\u3e Auer \u3c/i\u3e Deference Should Be Dead; Long Live \u3ci\u3e Seminole Rock \u3c/i\u3e Deference

Deference doctrines should be understood in light of the Administrative Procedures Act’s distinction between legislative rules and interpretive rules and should be based on a solid theoretical foundation. Modern Auer deference calls for categorical deference for an agency’s regulatory interpretation of an ambiguous regulation. This is inconsistent with the APA’s characterization of the purpose of an interpretive rule. Properly construed, interpretive rules clarify the meaning of a legal text which should be justified by use of expository reasoning. These rules deserve a lesser form of deference (Skidmore deference), based on an agency’s unique understanding of its own regulations which is consistent with how the Court viewed its deference decision in the original Seminole Rock case. Understanding the different roles of judicial review that distinguish between interpretation and policymaking has special import for agencies that regulate industries characterized by rapid technological change with agency personnel charged with making policy decisions that are technically complex, such as communications and environmental protection

Impact of Genetic Polymorphisms on the Smoking-related Risk of Periodontal Disease: the Population-based Study SHIP

Periodontitis is a bacterial inflammatory disease leading to attachment loss with the consequence of tooth loss. There exists a multifactorial risk pattern including bacterial challenge, smoking, age, sex, diabetes, socio-economic and genetic factors. Smoking has the highest impact on the course of the disease modulated by all the other factors. Here, we report the relationship between smoking and the polymorphisms of genetic polymorphisms inflicted in the pathogenesis