The U.S. Supreme Court made it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress.
The idea was that when Congress enacts broad regulatory mandates, agencies fill in the gaps, using their expertise to carry out what are reasonably deemed to be Congress’ intent. But, in an important caveat, Roberts noted that the decision does “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful–including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself–are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”
That argument, however, didn’t carry the day at the Supreme Court. The conservative supermajority, and its long time opposition to Chevron deference, carried the day instead. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed during oral argument in the case deferring to agency interpretations “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, environmental law, and communications law.
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: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »
Source: commondreams - 🏆 530. / 51 Read more »
Source: commondreams - 🏆 530. / 51 Read more »
Source: denverpost - 🏆 13. / 72 Read more »
Source: nbcchicago - 🏆 545. / 51 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »