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]
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the issue of when Chevron deference should be applied. In an 8–1 majority decision, the Court determined that Chevron deference applies when Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force ...
Since being handed down, Chevron had become among the most frequently cited cases in American administrative law. [7] Over 17,000 lower federal court decisions and 70 decisions by the Supreme Court itself cited Chevron. [8] Between 2003 and 2013, circuit courts applied Chevron in 77% of decisions regarding regulatory disputes. [9]
After 40 years, the Supreme Court overturns its landmark 'Chevron' ruling, but are the implications for healthcare and environmental regulations good or bad news for businesses and consumers?
The court rejected a 40-year-old legal doctrine colloquially known as Chevron, effectively reducing the power of executive branch agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and shifting it ...
Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned two years ago. One criticism of the latest ruling — echoed by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinion — is that the court is seizing ...
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 ...
(1) Whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1) for filing a petition for review of an order of removal is jurisdictional; and (2) whether a noncitizen satisfies the deadline in Section 1252(b)(1) by filing a petition for review challenging an agency order denying withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture ...