Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Federal rules that impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe, could be at risk after a wide-ranging Supreme Court ruling Friday.
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]
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 ...
One of the arguments he makes revolves around the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the so-called “Chevron doctrine,” which allowed government agencies to make reasonable ...
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), [2] was a landmark case in United States regulatory takings law whereby the Court expressly overruled precedent created in Agins v. City of Tiburon . [ 1 ] Agins held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state ...
The so-called Chevron doctrine — named after the case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — told courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute in circumstances in ...
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 ...
In it, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the legal doctrine requiring judicial deference to the regulatory state had created "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law actually says ...