Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2002 Chevron was able to invoke Chevron deference to win another case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002), before the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court applied Chevron deference and upheld as reasonable an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation, which allowed an employer to refuse to hire an ...
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 ...
The Court also ruled that the CIT must, when appropriate, give regulations Chevron deference. The Court noted that as early as 1809, Chief Justice Marshall had written in United States v. Vowell that for customs cases "if the question had been doubtful, the court would have respected the uniform construction which it is understood has been ...
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 ...
The case expands Chevron deference by giving the agency the highest deference. In Chevron, there was a two-step standard of review. The Chevron standard dealt with "a formal rationale for judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute." Auer did not adopt the two-step process for review in Chevron but a single level standard of ...
This doctrine is now generally referred to as "Chevron deference" among legal practitioners. [61] Unlike some other members of the Court, Stevens was consistently willing to find organic statutes unambiguous and thus overturn agency interpretations of those statutes. (See his majority opinion in Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) - What level of deference should an agency's interpretation of its own statute receive in areas where such interpretations were intended by Congress to have the "force of law"? Block v.
This page was last edited on 1 May 2023, at 18:20 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply ...