Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 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 ...
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the authority to issue rules to implement laws that weren't clear. ... statutes typically don’t clearly define how agencies should tackle ...
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?
Lower courts used the Chevron decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake. Conservative and business interests strongly backed the fishermen’s appeals, betting that a court that was remade during Republican Donald Trump’s presidency ...
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 ...
Here is a look at the court's decision and the implications for government regulations going forward. What is the Chevron decision? Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...
David Doniger, a lawyer and longtime Natural Resources Defense Council official who argued the original Chevron case in 1984, said he feared that a ruling to overturn the doctrine could “free judges to be radical activists” who could “effectively rewrite our laws and block the protections they are supposed to provide."