Chevron and Public Rights
An interesting point from Ilan Wurman.
Plus: Divides over misinformation, on free markets and social justice, and more…
One of today's two cert grants comes in a case asking the justices to reconsider Chevron v. NRDC.
While the US Supreme Court continues to require judges to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of law in many situations, numerous states have abolished or severely curbed such deference. The results should temper both hopes and fears associated with ending judicial deference to agencies.
Attempts to reclassify ISPs as common carriers are unsupported by law.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed questions on a range of questions at a recent Notre Dame symposium.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
A majority of judges concluded the plain language of the statute does not apply to bump stocks, but they also would have denied Chevron deference had they found the statute ambiguous.
A new opinion concludes Ohio courts need not defer to agency interpretations. The justices are not unanimous, but no justice writes in favor of deference.
The Supreme Court proclaimed this term that the Lemon test had been abandoned. Is this what is in story for Chevron?
American Hospital Association v. Becerra is another indication that lower courts are too quick to give agencies Chevron deference.
An interesting administrative law tidbit in one of today's Supreme Court decisions.
The puzzle of marijuana's Schedule I status invites a reconsideration of the agency's vast discretion to decide which substances should be prohibited.
This ruling has some distinctive elements, and may have a broader impact than previous decisions.
A federal appeals court rejects a highly implausible redefinition of machine guns.
A long awaited decision in a challenge to the Trump Administration's "bump stock" ban tees up some interesting questions for the High Court's review.