Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decided June 25, 1984 |
||||||
|
||||||
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 | ||||||
|
||||||
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"):
- 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.
- 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.