Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984) by tam26166


									       Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US 837
       (1984) - 560

   Very important case
      Deals with the review process when it is alleged that

       the agency has overstepped its statutory authority
   What was the issue?
      Whether the EPA had the authority under the Clean Air

       Act to use the "bubble" approach to stationary
       sources, i.e., treating one plant as a single source,
       which gave more flexibility in trading off emissions
       between different processes in the plant
       Chevron Step One

   Did congress give specific guidance in the
   This can be positive or negative - i.e., the statute
    might allow the action, or clearly prohibit it
    Chevron Step Two

   If congress did not speak directly to the
    issue, is the agency's interpretation
    reasonable under the general intent of
    the enabling act?
       Did Congress speak directly to this issue?

   Why did Congress want to balance in enforcing
    the Clean Air Act?
      The economic interest in continued industrial

       development and cleaning up the environment
   Why did Congress not spell out how it wanted the
    law to be enforced?
      Requires changing technical expertise

      Political Hot Potato
    How do you decide congressional intent?

   What is in the law itself?
   What is in the formal legislative history,
    i.e., committee documents and the like?
   What was said at hearings on the
       How can legislative history be

   Ever see those speeches to an empty chamber?
   You can introduce reports that were never
    approved or reviewed by a committee
   The committee can mask its view of the law with
    bogus history
   Scalia usually is against legislative history and
    Breyer is for it, but in some cases like the FDA
    Tobacco Case they switch roles.
    What did the Court Rule?

   What did the court find in step two
    about the legality of the EPA standard?
      The bubble was OK

   How is step two very much like the
    arbitrary and capricious standard?
      How are Courts and Agencies Different?

   What does the United States Supreme Court
    say is different about the roles of courts and
    agencies in resolving political questions?
      The court must be neutral

      The agency should carry out the

       executive's policies
What factors indicate to the court that the
agency is probably correct?
   1) Procedure - was there a full notice and
    comment process, which would tend to identify
    legal problems
   2) Thoroughness of consideration - how well does
    the agency make and document its rational for the
   3) Contemporaneous Construction - does the
    interpretation date back to the drafting of the law
    and was the agency involved in the drafting?
   4) Long-standing construction
   5) Consistency - is it consistent with the agency's
    interpretation of similar laws?
   6) Reliance - have people been relying on the
   7) Reenactment - did        This usually happens by
    congress endorse the         congress knowing about
    interpretation in some       the interpretation while it
    manner?                      is amending the law, and
                                 not changing the law to
                                 block the interpretation.

To top