Courts defer to agency expertise primarily because agencies possess specialized knowledge and experience in their respective fields. This expertise enables agencies to make informed decisions on technical matters that may be beyond the understanding of courts.

Courts do not consider the political views of the agency's decision-makers when determining the level of deference to give to an agency's decision. This is because the political views of the decision-makers are irrelevant to the merits of the agency's decision.

Chevron deference is the highest level of deference that courts can give to an agency's decision. Under Chevron deference, courts will uphold an agency's interpretation of a statute if it is reasonable, even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently.

Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, courts will uphold an agency's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, is based on a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and is in accordance with the law.

In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court held that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if it is reasonable, even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently.

The purpose of the substantial evidence standard of review is to ensure that the agency's decision is supported by reliable and credible evidence, to prevent the agency from making arbitrary and capricious decisions, and to ensure that the agency's decision is consistent with the law.

In Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, the Supreme Court held that courts must uphold an agency's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence.

The purpose of the Skidmore deference standard of review is to give courts the flexibility to consider an agency's decision without being bound by it. This standard of review is typically applied to agency decisions that are not entitled to Chevron or substantial evidence deference.

In Skidmore v. Swift & Co., the Supreme Court held that courts may consider an agency's interpretation of a statute as persuasive authority, but are not bound by it.

Chevron deference is a higher level of deference than Skidmore deference. Under Chevron deference, courts must uphold an agency's interpretation of a statute if it is reasonable, even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently. Under Skidmore deference, courts may consider an agency's interpretation of a statute as persuasive authority, but are not bound by it.

Courts do not consider the political views of the agency's decision-makers when determining the level of deference to give to an agency's decision. This is because the political views of the decision-makers are irrelevant to the merits of the agency's decision.

The purpose of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is to ensure that the agency's decision is supported by reliable and credible evidence, to prevent the agency from making arbitrary and capricious decisions, and to ensure that the agency's decision is consistent with the law.

In Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the Supreme Court held that courts must uphold an agency's decision if it is not arbitrary and capricious, even if the court would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence.

Arbitrary and capricious review is a higher level of deference than substantial evidence review. Under arbitrary and capricious review, courts will uphold an agency's decision if it is not arbitrary and capricious, even if the court would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence. Under substantial evidence review, courts will uphold an agency's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence.