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 ...
A recent Supreme Court ruling may slow down President-elect Donald Trump's deregulation plans. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine in June limits federal agencies' power.
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 longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is 136 years, for the common law Admiralty cases Minturn v. Maynard , 58 U.S. (17 How.) 476 decision in 1855, overruled by the Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc. , 500 U.S. 603 decision in 1991.
NRDC won the case in a federal court, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and ruled in favor of Chevron on the grounds that the courts should broadly defer to EPA and other independent regulatory agencies. Chevron was one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law and was cited in thousands of cases. [4]
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.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent joined by the court’s two other liberals said that, with the overturning of Chevron, “a rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”
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.”