Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Courts should be vigilant about ensuring that the government does not just smuggle Chevron deference back into administrative law for a substantial subset of regulatory cases. If early post-Loper ...
The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2] Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".
The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. Here is a look at the court's decision and the implications for government regulations going ...
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing ...
Chevron's flexibility, the liberal justices suggested, was one of the rule's virtues rather than one of its problems, as it permits subject matter experts selected by elected officials to figure ...
The case expands Chevron deference by giving the agency the highest deference. In Chevron, there was a two-step standard of review. The Chevron standard dealt with "a formal rationale for judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute." Auer did not adopt the two-step process for review in Chevron but a single level standard of ...
The decision overturns the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent that required courts to give deference to federal agencies when creating regulations based on an ambiguous law.
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.