Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Supreme Court logo
Decided
June 25, 1984
Surname: Chevron USA, Incorporated versus Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, et al.
Quoted: 467 U.S. 837 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 2778; 81 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1984 US LEXIS 118; 52 USLW 4845; 21 ERC (BNA) 1049; 14 ELR 20507
Facts: The Environment Protection Agency changed its definition for the term source of air pollution used in the Clean Air Act .
statement

Administrative authorities that have been given powers by Congress have a final margin of appreciation as to the powers assigned to them if the relevant provision of the law is imprecise and the authority's interpretation is appropriate or permissible.

Positions
Majority opinion: John Paul Stevens , Warren E. Burger , Byron White , William J. Brennan , Lewis F. Powell , Harry A. Blackmun
Dissenting opinion:
Opinion:
Not involved: Thurgood Marshall , William H. Rehnquist , Sandra Day O'Connor
Applied Law

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

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council (Chevron USA, Incorporated versus Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, et al.) Of June 25, 1984 is one of the most fundamental and most cited decisions of the US American administrative law. In it, the Court of Justice set out the conditions under which an administrative authority has a margin of interpretation with regard to a law to be applied by it, which the courts must also respect (doctrine of “administrative deference”).

Whether an authority is to be granted such leeway is therefore to be determined in a two-stage test (the so-called "chevron two-step"):

  1. the respective examining court first determines whether the authority has been granted the authority to interpret an ambiguous legal provision by Congress . If so, the court must respect the authority's interpretation.
  2. If it is not clear whether the authority has been granted such power, the court has to examine in a second step whether the authority's interpretation in question is “reasonable” and therefore to be respected by the court or “permissible”.

Comparison with German law

In German administrative law, the “administrative deference” is most likely to be compared with the margin of appreciation , but not to be equated with it. As a rule, German administrative courts can also check indefinite legal terms without restriction.

See also

Web links