When Chevron was first decided it was generally welcomed on the right side of the political spectrum as a principled method constraining judicial discretion and permitting the executive to exert policy control over the administrative state. But as the administrative state continues to grow, some now see Chevron as removing an important check on government power and an abdication of the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is. Some members of the Supreme Court are now open to reconsidering judicial deference to agency action, at least in certain areas, such as determining their own jurisdictions and interpreting their own regulations. The panel will consider the extent to which the new skepticism toward Chevron in particular and judicial deference to agencies in general is justified. -- This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016. -- Welcome: Dean Blake D. Morant, President, Association of American Law Schools & Dean and Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School and Dean Kellye Y. Testy, President Elect, Association of American Law Schools & Toni Rembe Dean & Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society -- Panel: The New Chevron Skeptics -- Featuring: Prof. Michael Herz, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, University of Notre Dame Law School; Prof. Peter Strauss, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law.