Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
While California waits for the EPA to act, more than 1,200 trucks have obtained new registrations to move cargo at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach this year; 90% run on diesel.
The Supreme Court ruling could boost efforts by conservatives who have taken aim at the Biden Environmental Protection Agency’s rules limiting planet-warming pollution from vehicles, oil and gas ...
After 40 years, the Supreme Court overturns its landmark 'Chevron' ruling, but are the implications for healthcare and environmental regulations good or bad news for businesses and consumers?
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the authority to issue rules to implement laws that weren't clear. And that deference to the executive branch has enabled presidential administrations from both parties to use rulemaking to create policy, especially in times of deep partisan division in Washington.
In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. That ruling said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.
Since being handed down, Chevron had become among the most frequently cited cases in American administrative law. [7] Over 17,000 lower federal court decisions and 70 decisions by the Supreme Court itself cited Chevron. [8] Between 2003 and 2013, circuit courts applied Chevron in 77% of decisions regarding regulatory disputes. [9]
The Supreme Court’s ‘Chevron’ ruling is an existential threat to the ‘American economic miracle’ and will make the U.S. more like Europe, Lazard chair says Jason Ma July 20, 2024 at 3:50 PM
The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to the convictions of General Motors (GM) and related companies that were involved in the monopolizing of the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines (NCL) and subsidiaries, as well as to the allegations that the defendants conspired to own or control transit systems, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.