Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Potential weakening of patient and consumer health care protections. Friday’s ruling could open the door to legal challenges to the decisions made by the government’s public health agencies ...
HHS is also the subject of a lawsuit that Texas filed prior to the reversal of the Chevron decision, arguing that agency guidance to hospitals stating that they can provide emergency abortion care ...
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 ...
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.
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]
The decision could set back efforts to reduce air and water pollution, restrict toxic chemicals or even take on new public health threats like COVID—19, environmental and public health advocates said. Horowitz called the ruling “yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to tackle emerging problems like climate change.”
The decision could set back efforts to reduce air and water pollution, restrict toxic chemicals or even take on new public health threats like COVID—19, environmental and public health advocates ...
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).