We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Chevron Deference: Mend It, Don't End It.
- Authors
Morrison, Alan B.
- Abstract
n Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,1the Supreme Court unanimously adopted an approach to interpreting federal statutes under which the courts are required to give substantial deference to the interpretations by the administrative agencies that enforce them. The Republicans in the House of Representatives have declared war on the Chevron doctrine, and they managed to pass H.R. 4768, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016,” which amends section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require federal courts reviewing decisions of law of administrative agencies to “decide de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.”2 There appeared to be little chance that the Senate would join the House, at least in part because of the filibuster. And if it had, President Obama would have vetoed the bill, as would almost any other President.3Politics aside, is the Chevron doctrine sensible, at least in most cases, or is it as ill-advised as its opponents claim? This essay will argue that, by and large, Chevron makes sense in most cases, but that it needs some fine-tuning around the edges. In other words, mend it, don’t end it. Before turning to possible adjustments, it is worth taking a minute to recall the origins of Chevron,and how the Supreme Court considered it to be quite unremarkable at the time it was decided.
- Subjects
CHEVRON USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.; CHEVRON USA Inc.; NATURAL Resources Defense Council; STATE statutes (United States); LAW &; fact; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Journal of Law & Politics, 2017, Vol 32, Issue 3, p293
- ISSN
0749-2227
- Publication type
Article