For the last four decades, the Chevron doctrine provided a simple test with two distinct questions for judges to evaluate whether the agencies under the executive branch are rightly going about things the way Congress intended:
For example, the doctrine empowers agencies to adjust regulations when better information comes to light, if unexpected emergencies arise (like the Covid pandemic), or when circumstances shift, knowing that they have a better chance of winning in court.
The EPA had lost a lower court judgment on whether it had the right to allow businesses to exploit loopholes that would effectively scale back the application of the Clean Air Act.
It all came down to questions over the word “source.” After Congress passed a bill creating an extensive review process for any new stationary source of air pollution (say, a factory), Reagan’s EPA softened the definition to muddy the new requirements and free companies to more easily make changes.
Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion outlined the two-step test concluding that agency experts should be empowered to fill policy gaps left by the legislative branch – not judges.
“While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices – resolving the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities … Federal judges – who have no constituency – have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” Jody Freeman, a leading administrative law expert at Harvard Law School, explains that the 1984 ruling delegated power to agencies and their experts, enabling them to “regulate our modern economy, set and enforce public health standards, protect consumers, and much more”.
The original article contains 1,545 words, the summary contains 310 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
For the last four decades, the Chevron doctrine provided a simple test with two distinct questions for judges to evaluate whether the agencies under the executive branch are rightly going about things the way Congress intended:
For example, the doctrine empowers agencies to adjust regulations when better information comes to light, if unexpected emergencies arise (like the Covid pandemic), or when circumstances shift, knowing that they have a better chance of winning in court.
The EPA had lost a lower court judgment on whether it had the right to allow businesses to exploit loopholes that would effectively scale back the application of the Clean Air Act.
It all came down to questions over the word “source.” After Congress passed a bill creating an extensive review process for any new stationary source of air pollution (say, a factory), Reagan’s EPA softened the definition to muddy the new requirements and free companies to more easily make changes.
Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion outlined the two-step test concluding that agency experts should be empowered to fill policy gaps left by the legislative branch – not judges.
“While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices – resolving the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities … Federal judges – who have no constituency – have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” Jody Freeman, a leading administrative law expert at Harvard Law School, explains that the 1984 ruling delegated power to agencies and their experts, enabling them to “regulate our modern economy, set and enforce public health standards, protect consumers, and much more”.
The original article contains 1,545 words, the summary contains 310 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!