Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued 29 February 1984
Decided June 25, 1984


Full case name:	Chevron U.S.A., Incorporated v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, et al.

Citations:	467 U.S. 837; 104 S. Ct. 2778; 81 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 118; 52 U.S.L.W. 4845; 21 ERC (BNA) 1049; 14 ELR 20507

Prior history:	Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gorsuch, 685 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. granted sub nom. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 461 U.S. 956 (1983)

Subsequent history:	Rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984)

Holding

Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to them by Congress (1) where the grant of authority was ambiguous, and (2) where the interpretation was reasonable or permissible.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Case opinions

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Burger, White, Brennan, Powell, Blackmun
Marshall, Rehnquist, O'Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685; 40 C.F.R. 51.18(j)(1)(i)-(ii) (1983)

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)^[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal analysis for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of its own statutory mandate. Chevron is the Court's clearest articulation of the doctrine of "administrative deference."

1 Background
2 Facts
3 Issue
4 Holding
5 Importance
6 See also
7 External links

[edit] Background

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.(1 Cranch) 137 (1803), United States federal courts have the authority to judicially review the statutes enacted by Congress, and declare a statute invalid if it violates the Constitution. But the Constitution sets no express limits on a government agency's authority. Rather, federal government agencies are given authority through statutes enacted by Congress.

[edit] Facts

Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address states that had failed to attain the air quality standards established by the EPA (Defendant). "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'nonattainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution." 467 U.S. at 840. During the Carter administration, the EPA defined a source as any device in a plant that produced pollution. In 1981, after Reagan was elected, the EPA adopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the total emissions from the plant itself did not increase. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental protection group, challenged the EPA regulation in federal court. Chevron, an affected party, appealed the lower court's decision.

[edit] Issue

The issue facing the Chevron court, therefore, was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency's own reading of a statute that gives that agency its authority to act.

[edit] Holding

The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step"), where a reviewing court determines (1) whether a statute permits or forbids an agency's interpretation, and (2) if a statute is not clear on step (1), the court decides whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is reasonable or permissible. If an agency's interpretation is reasonable, then the court will defer to the agency's reading of the statute.

[edit] Importance

Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law, though some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on Supreme Court jurisprudence. A February 2005 citation check on the LexisNexis Shepard's citation service revealed that Chevron has been cited over 12,290 times in court opinions, law review articles, and other secondary sources.