Brown & Williamson, the Supreme Court appeared to create an exception to Chevron deference for agency enactments that effect "major" changes. Neither the Supreme Court nor the scholarly literature, however, has ever articulated a satis-factory justification for the majorness line. Indeed, in the ...
Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Among other rationales for keepingChevrondeference, this set of justices appeared to defend the 40-year-old doctrine not only on the grounds ofstare decisis, but also on the basis
At present, courts also rely on the “major questions” doctrine inWest Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) to side stepChevrondeference even if a statute is ambiguous. Here the Supreme Court held that “in certain extraordinary cases” where it is unclear whether an agency action wa...
And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolvethese matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do? The ...
Raimondo,1 which may determine the fate of the deference doctrine established in Chevron2 in 1984. The issue in Loper is whether the Court should overrule Chevron, or limit or clarify the applicability of requiring deference to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Nearly...
which involved a challenge to a regulation enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, have said the so-called Chevron doctrine gives unelected federal bureaucrats too much power in crafting regulations that touch on major areas of American life, such as the workplace,...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that courts may no longer defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute so long as that interpretation is reasonable, a practice that had been known as Chevron deference. Instead, the Court held that federal courts are ...
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC: A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case that could directly reverse or narrow long-standing Chevron deference to federal agency interpretations brings risks to a host of EPA rules, including those that do not depend on the doctrine for their legal j
reliance because, almost since its inception, the Court has had to continually reshapeChevronthrough a series of patchworks and exceptions —Chevron“Step Zero,” the Major Questions Doctrine, and so on. Rather than continue to chip away atChevron’s excesses,Lop...