Question

Paraphrase this paragraph:

Finally, the Court declined to give Chevron deference to the NLRB’s interpretation of the NLRA in D.R. Horton, Inc. The Court observed that D.R. Horton, Inc. was an outlier in Board precedent, as it “for the first time in the 77 years since the NLRA’s adoption [] asserted that the NLRA effectively nullifies the Arbitration Act in cases like ours.” The Court also reasoned that the NLRB “sought to interpret [the NLRA] in a way that limits the work of a second statute, the Arbitration Act,” and that, although Chevron deference is premised in part on the notion that “‘policy choices’ should be left to the Executive Branch,” “here the Executive seems to be of two minds, for we have received competing briefs from the [NLRB] and the United States (through the Solicitor General).” The Court noted that none of the parties challenged the doctrine of deference to administrative determinations established in Chevron, but that the NLRB’s interpretation of the FAA was not entitled to such deference in any event.

Answer 1

As court observed that in the past 77 years since the NLRA's adoption that caused NLRA to nullify the Arbitration Act and NLRB interpreted the NLRA's decision regarding the limitation to the work of a second statue of the Arbitration Act, which led court to reach a final decision to decline the Chevron deference of NLRB's interpretation of NRLA with regards to D.R. Horton Inc. Although Chevron deferences are mentioned in the policy choices that must be left to the Executive Branch still Executives have dual thoughts and the court have recieved a competing briefs from NLRB as well as from the Solicitor General of United States. Therefore, court have noted that none of the parties have authority to challenge the doctrine of deference established in the Chevron, also that NLRB's interpretation regarding FAA was not entitled to such deference in any event.