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 ...
Courts should be vigilant about ensuring that the government does not just smuggle Chevron deference back into administrative law for a substantial subset of regulatory cases. If early post-Loper ...
A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test") in which a reviewing court first determined whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress was clear, that was the end of the matter because the court and the agency must give effect to the unambiguously ...
A Chevron spokesperson commented that the award was "nothing more than a stunt to distract attention from the fact that the lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador has been proven to be meritless and the product of unprecedented fraud" and pointed to a U.S. court finding that the plaintiff's lawyers had committed "mail and wire fraud, money ...
In lieu of Chevron, the decision assigns the determination of congressional ambiguity to the judicial branch, with executive agency expertise still to be considered under the weaker Skidmore deference. Existing rules and case law already decided under Chevron deference were to remain in place from this decision.
It's been onward and upward for Chevron (NYSE:CVX). The company originally planned to acquire Anadarko Petroleum (NYSE:APC), a move the market did not like. The Chevron stock price dropped nearly ...
The narrower version of the major questions doctrine is as an exception to Chevron deference. Under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions: First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.
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]