Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The court's 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal ...
Since Congress tasks agencies with implementing statutes, the court decided that the judiciary should usually defer to agency interpretations of their own statutes — an approach known as Chevron ...
"Chevron deference" was the legal rule that existed for decades under the 1984 Supreme Court ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which the conservative justices overturned ...
Getting rid of Chevron, a rule created by a 6-0 conservative majority, has evolved into an important issue for conservatives. Chevron’s critics characterize the doctrine as a power grab for the ...
The Chevron doctrine was a decadeslong legal precedent dating back to 1984 that empowered federal government agencies to interpret laws when legislation passed by Congress was ambiguous.
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 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.
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the issue of when Chevron deference should be applied. In an 8–1 majority decision, the Court determined that Chevron deference applies when Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force ...