Minion Mining LLC operates mineral mines in Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Labor charged one of Minion's mines with "significant and substantial" (S & S) violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. According to the charges, inadequately sealed enclosures of electrical equipment in the mine created the potential for an explosion. The Mine Act designates a violation as S&S when it "could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard." Challenging the S&S determination, Minion filed a suit against the secretary of Labor. The Secretary argued that "could" means "merely possible"- if there is a violation, the existence of a hazard is assumed. This position was consistent with agency and judicial precedent and the Mine Act's history and purpose. Minion argued that "could" requires proof of the likelihood of a hazard.

Questions

Using the information from Chapter 43, answer the following questions in a Word document and upload it by the due date.

1. What type of circumstances would need to be present for a court to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law? Do these circumstances exist here? Why or why not? Explain using the specific facts from the case to support your answer.
2. In your opinion, should the doctrine of Chevron deference be abolished? Why or why not? Explain.