In this case law update, we want to walk through an important North Carolina Supreme Court decision, Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, and explain what it means for administrative law, licensing board appeals, and anyone who relies on courts to independently interpret statutes.
Why This Decision Matters?
The core issue in Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation is judicial deference: whether courts should automatically defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
For decades, some North Carolina Court of Appeals opinions followed a practice—borrowed from federal precedent—that encouraged deference to agency interpretations when statutes were unclear.
The North Carolina Supreme Court squarely rejected that approach in Savage. As Justice Dietz explained:
“We never approved this interpretive rule and it directly conflicts with our own precedent requiring courts to review questions of law de novo.”
How This Relates to The Federal Chevron Issue?
At the federal level, the Chevron doctrine long instructed judges to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) overturned Chevron, and Savage brings North Carolina law in line with that national trend: judges must independently interpret the law rather than simply rubber-stamping an agency’s view.
What “de novo” Review Means?
De novo is Latin for “anew.” When a court reviews a question of law de novo, the judge re-examines the legal issue without giving controlling weight to the agency’s conclusion. Courts may consider an agency’s interpretation, but they are not required to defer to it — and they must reach their own reasoned interpretation of the statute.
Practical Implications For Administrative Appeals and Licensing Boards
- Licensing boards and state administrative bodies are agencies under the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act (G.S. 150B). If you appeal an adverse licensing decision, the superior court is expected to conduct a true de novo review of legal questions.
- Judges can and should consider how an agency has applied a statute, but they no longer must defer to the agency’s interpretation simply because the statute is ambiguous.
- In practice, this change prevents lower courts from deferring to agency interpretations even when the statute is not genuinely unclear, and it restores the court’s role as the primary interpreter of law.
- This is particularly consequential in professional license disputes where agency decisions affect livelihoods — appellants can expect courts to independently evaluate statutory questions rather than defaulting to the agency’s view.
What This Means For Agencies and Practitioners?
Agencies should continue to articulate reasoned statutory interpretations in their rules, orders, and guidance documents — those explanations remain persuasive evidence of how the agency understands and applies the law. But practitioners should be prepared to argue directly to judges about statutory meaning and not rely solely on agency precedent.
For attorneys representing licensees or regulated parties, Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation emphasizes the importance of developing statutory arguments for the court and not assuming that an agency’s long-standing interpretation will control the outcome.
Conclusion
Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation is a major decision for North Carolina administrative law. It reaffirms that courts, not agencies, have the final responsibility to interpret statutes — and it aligns state practice with recent federal changes to judicial deference. For licensees, agencies, and attorneys, this ruling restores a meaningful de novo review and changes how statutory disputes should be argued in appeals.
*Nothing in this blog establishes an attorney-client relationship. Nothing in this blog is legal advice. If you have any questions, please check out our other blogs and our YouTube channel. You can also call us at 919-521-8810 with questions.
