Thomas Harvey

Aug 12, 2024 | commentary.org | Adam White |Thomas Harvey |Michael Woronoff

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that judges should defer to regulators when they offer reasonable interpretations of ambiguously worded laws. As a matter of legal doctrine, the case in question—Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council—was important from the start. But for a long time, the importance of what came to be known as “Chevron deference” was limited to the world of regulatory litigators, agencies, judges, and administrative-law professors.

Jan 29, 2024 | news.yahoo.com | Thomas Harvey |Thomas Koenig

The Supreme Court recently heard a pair of cases challenging the Chevron doctrine. That doctrine is the product of the landmark 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which ruled that judges should defer to a regulatory agency’s interpretations of the laws that the agency administers as long as the law is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation of it is reasonable. The eventual decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v.

Jan 29, 2024 | yahoo.com | Thomas Harvey |Thomas Koenig

The Supreme Court recently heard a pair of cases challenging the Chevron doctrine. That doctrine is the product of the landmark 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which ruled that judges should defer to a regulatory agency’s interpretations of the laws that the agency administers as long as the law is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation of it is reasonable. The eventual decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v.