Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The Supreme Court today overruled a decades-old decision that let judges defer to a regulator's interpretation of complex statutes, so long as the court deemed the interpretation reasonable. The ...
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 ...
The court ruled in cases brought by Atlantic herring fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged a fee requirement. 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.
The justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives. Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in challenges that could be spawned by the high court’s ruling. The Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer had warned such a move would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”
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.
Between 2003 and 2013, circuit courts applied Chevron in 77% of decisions regarding regulatory disputes. [9] In years prior to the current case, the Supreme Court, with a majority of conservative justices, had been seen as leading towards weakening or overturning Chevron. In West Virginia v.
The precedent that the court overturned arose from a ruling involving oil company Chevron that had called for judges to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ...