Supreme Court Rejects Chevron Doctrine
Lower Courts Have Relied on the Chevron Doctrine in Thousands of Cases
Oral Argument - February 29, 1984
The Supreme Court on Friday sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies to regulate. The Court's 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA rejected the Chevron doctrine, a legal principle that gave agencies broad deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes. The Chevron doctrine has been applied by lower courts in thousands of cases since it was first established in 1984.
The Chevron doctrine does not provide a clear or easily applicable standard, so arguments for reliance based on it are often rejected by the courts.
In the West Virginia case, the Court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Court said that the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and that the EPA's attempt to do so was an "unreasonable interpretation" of the statute.
The Court's decision is a major setback for the EPA and other federal agencies. It will make it more difficult for agencies to regulate in areas where the law is ambiguous. The decision is also a victory for states and businesses that have argued that the Chevron doctrine gives agencies too much power.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a significant development in administrative law. It will have a major impact on the way that federal agencies regulate in the future. The decision is a victory for states and businesses that have argued that the Chevron doctrine gives agencies too much power. It is also a setback for the EPA and other federal agencies that have relied on the Chevron doctrine to regulate in areas where the law is ambiguous.
Comments