Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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.
The court's six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives. The liberal justices were in dissent. The liberal justices were in ...
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 ...
Justice Roberts' opinion stated that prior administrative actions and court decisions decided under Chevron deference are not overturned by this decision, [18] [19] and in lieu of Chevron, agency interpretation can still be respected under the weaker Skidmore deference established in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944). [14]
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a Supreme Court of the United States case before the Court on an application for a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's COVID-19 vaccination or test mandate. On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the mandate.
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 the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies.