The author’s stance toward agency deference emerges only after several attributed claims. The author reports that administrative-law scholars defend the idea that courts should defer to agencies because agencies possess expertise, and that separation-of-powers theorists warn that agency interpretations should receive no judicial respect. The conclusion recasts the debate by holding that deference is defensible only when agency expertise is exercised through accountable reasoning that courts can review. The author’s evaluative terms make the final position narrower than either attributed claim.