Tag Archives: Chevron

Chevron in the States: Mississippi Update

by Aaron Saiger — Monday, July 16, 2018

Mississippi’s high court announced last month that it will “no longer … give deference to agency interpretations” of their governing statutes.  The case is King v. Mississippi Military Dept.    It’s a tough summer for Chevron in state supreme courts, when you read King in conjunction with Wisconsin’s Tetra Tech, which I discussed two weeks ago. Like […]

Chevron in the States:  Wisconsin Update

by Aaron Saiger — Wednesday, July 4, 2018

The cause of overruling Chevron continues to gather momentum.  (This post will appear nestled among several that parse the views of potential nominees to the United States Supreme Court regarding judicial deference.)  It is notable, then, that the day before Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a spirited anti-Chevron manifesto, written […]

Administrative Law’s Ordinary Remand Rule: In re Negusie Edition

by Chris Walker — Monday, July 2, 2018@chris_j_walker

When a court concludes that an agency’s decision is erroneous, the ordinary rule is to remand to the agency to consider the issue anew (as opposed to the court deciding the issue itself). The Supreme Court arguably first articulated this ordinary remand rule in the Chenery decisions in the 1940s. As I explore elsewhere, the Court […]

What Actually Happened in Chevron, by Richard J. Pierce, Jr.

by Guest Blogger — Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018

Over the last few years, the debate over the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in NRDC v. Chevron has morphed from a debate among academics to a near hysterical debate among politicians and pundits who have never read the Court’s opinion and know nothing about the dispute that led to the Court’s opinion. In an effort […]

Will the Supreme Court Revisit Deference Doctrines This Term?

by Jennifer Mascott — Friday, Oct. 6, 2017@jennmascott

Yesterday in his Supreme Court Relist Watch, John Elwood highlighted the Supreme Court’s unusual action this past summer on a cert petition regarding Chevron deference. Mr. Elwood observed that the Supreme Court relisted—again— Scenic America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 16-739, which garnered attention this summer when the court called for a reply . . […]

What 2016 Gorsuch Opinions Could Mean for 2017 Re-Argument in Sessions v. Dimaya

by Michael Kagan — Monday, July 3, 2017@MichaelGKagan

At the end of its term, a shorthanded and evidently evenly divided Supreme Court scheduled two immigration cases for re-argument next term when nine justices can hear the cases. Of the two, Sessions v. Dimaya stands out because the ninth and newest justice has very recently issued opinions that seem to bear directly on key […]

Judge Gorsuch and Chevron Doctrine Part III: The Gutierrez-Brizuela Concurring Opinion, by Asher Steinberg

by Guest Blogger — Wednesday, Mar. 29, 2017

This is part three of a three-part series on Judge Gorsuch. Last summer when I was taking the New York bar, I ran into an acquaintance who was an incoming clerk for one of President Trump’s Supreme Court short-listers. At some point she asked me what a judge I knew was “like,” and I replied that […]

Judge Gorsuch and Chevron Doctrine Part II: The Misuse of Precedent, by Asher Steinberg

by Guest Blogger — Tuesday, Mar. 28, 2017

This is part two of a three-part series on Judge Gorsuch. Does Judge Gorsuch care about precedent? The question might seem like asking if Judge Gorsuch cares about stray kittens – of course he cares about precedent. After reading his administrative-law opinions, though, one can wonder. Padilla-Caldera II In Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales (“Padilla-Caldera I”), the Tenth […]

Judge Gorsuch and Chevron Doctrine Part I: The Misuse of Fact in De Niz Robles, by Asher Steinberg

by Guest Blogger — Monday, Mar. 27, 2017

This is part one of a three-part series on Judge Gorsuch. In the confirmation questionnaire Judge Gorsuch submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he listed Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch first among the list of the ten most significant cases he has decided. It could hardly be otherwise. His concurring opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela calling for the Court to […]

Keeping Big Cases from Making Bad Law: The Resurgent “Major Questions” Doctrine, by Nathan Richardson

by Guest Blogger — Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016

Who decides what laws passed by Congress mean in practice? As almost everyone knows, usually the courts fulfill this role, citing Marbury v. Madison – “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Readers of Notice and Comment are undoubtedly familiar with the large modern exception […]