Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a United States–based 501(c)(3) non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bozeman, India, and Beijing. [1]
A number of viral emails claimed that the executive order "creates martial law." [4] Similar claims were repeated by Texas congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas in a constituent newsletter; she later retracted her statements. [4] In reality, the order updated long-existing directives that have been issued ever since the Truman administration.
It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. [2]
Federal agencies can be in legal compliance and still not meet the technical standards. Section 508 §1194.3 General exceptions describe exceptions for national security (e.g., most of the primary systems used by the National Security Agency (NSA)), incidental items not procured as work products, individual requests for non-public access, fundamental alteration of a product's key requirements ...
U.S. Representative John Randolph Tucker, a Democrat from Virginia, sponsored the Tucker Act.. The Tucker Act (March 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505, 28 U.S.C. § 1491) is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.
Introduced in the 118th Congress as H. Res. 319 and S. Res. 173 by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) and Ed Markey (D–MA) on April 24, 2024; Committee consideration by House: Energy and Commerce, Science, Space, Technology, Education and Labor, Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, Ways and Means, Oversight and Reform
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage.