The Supreme Court’s June 28 ruling to overturn the Chevron doctrine(opens a new window)came in two cases challenging the 1984 decision:Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoandRelentless, Inc v. Department of Commerce. By a 6-3 margin, the court overruledChevron, holding that courts must...
The petitioners seek to overturn or greatly limit a 39-year-old Supreme Court case,Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council. That ruling said that if a federal law is silent or ambiguous on a specific question, courts should defer to government agencies’ interpretation of the statute. Adv...
Baugh, NathanRadiology Management
v. Rahimi barbecues the English language trying to square that case with the “originalism” that was allegedly the basis of their opinions in Bruen and Heller. On Monday, the Court made a ruling that, looked at from a certain angle, might indicate that there are limits to its ...
While the conservative legal movement decried the growth of the so-called administrative state, the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider the Chevron rulingsparked concernsthat unwinding or even limiting the framework would threaten the ability of federal agencies to craft regulations on issues like ...
However, the doctrine is undergoing challenges in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely be ruled on by early July 2024. This Holland & Knight alert examines the various ways in which the Court could rule and the impacts the ruling could have on agen...
The Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, a 40-year legal principle that has shaped the role of government agencies. The outcome could affect medication approval, pollution regulation, and more
Post the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Ecuador, the lawyers for the plaintiff decided to appeal in international courts. Donziger and Ecuadorian plaintiffs' hope of receiving $9.5-billion fine suffered a huge setback again, as the international tribunal was of the view that Ecuador violated ...
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron, USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a case that, for nearly four decades, mandated that courts defer to federal agencies' interpretations of the statutes they oversee. The Court’s L
The Court’s ruling held that although federal fishery law clearly states that the government can require fishing boats to carry monitors, it does not specifically dictate who must pay for the monitors. The Court deferred to NMFS’s interpretation because it was deemed reasonable. The petitioners...