Share on email on Friday curtailed the executive branch's ability to interpret laws it's charged with implementing, giving the judiciary more say in what federal agencies can do.
Further, he said it "is misguided" because "agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."the court's decision did not call into question prior cases that relied on Chevron, including holdings pertaining to the Clean Air Act, because they "are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.
It allowed Congress to rely on the expertise within the federal government when implementing everything from health and safety regulations to environmental and financial laws.However, Chevron was challenged in two separate cases over a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation meant to prevent overfishing on commercial fishing vessels.
It noted that Chevron only applied to ambiguous text in laws passed by Congress and instances in which lawmakers had given interpretive authority to an agency.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »
Source: nypost - 🏆 91. / 67 Read more »
Source: mercnews - 🏆 88. / 68 Read more »
Source: CBSNews - 🏆 87. / 68 Read more »
Source: AP - 🏆 728. / 51 Read more »
Source: CBS8 - 🏆 335. / 59 Read more »