Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1] The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2]
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Air: emissions from new equipment and total emissions from plant: Supreme Court of the United States: 1984 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe: Parkland: highway routing: Supreme Court of the United States: 1971 City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey: Cleanliness: interstate ...
The court’s liberal-leaning justices, on the other hand, expressed concern that overturning the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would force judges to ...
Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces. [2] [3]
Stevens authored the majority opinion in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). [60] The opinion stands for how courts review administrative agencies' interpretations of their organic statutes. If the organic statute unambiguously expresses the will of Congress, the court enforces the legislature's ...
David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement that the emergency declaration does not override other laws and that any regulatory rollbacks ...
An arbitration panel that will decide a high-profile clash between Exxon Mobil and Chevron will delve into the secret value of Hess' oil riches in Guyana, four people familiar with the matter said.
The narrower version of the major questions doctrine is as an exception to Chevron deference. Under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions: First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.