 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Chevron Doctrine The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, set forth rules for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory terms. Obviously, this issue can arise frequently when agency rules are challenged in court because such rules must be grounded in the agency's statutory authority. The Chevron decision established a two-step test to be used by courts in such situations. Under "step one" of the Chevron doctrine, the court should determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If it has, that is the "end of the matter." If however the statute is silent or ambiguous on the issue, the court moves to "step two." The question then is whether the agency's answer is based on a "permissible" construction of the statute. If so, then the court should defer. Under this test, courts usually defer to the agency interpretation if they get to step two. Therefore the key question tends to be the step-one question of whether the statute is clear. The Chevron case itself involved an interpretation made in an EPA regulation issued after a notice-and-comment procedure. Later cases have made clear that the Chevron test does not apply to agency interpretations made in less formal settings, such as policy statements or rulings made without notice and comment. (See Mead Doctrine).
|
