Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984) - 560

1
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984) -
560

• Very important case
• Deals with the review process when it is alleged
  that the agency has overstepped its statutory
  authority
• What was the issue?
• Whether the EPA had the authority under the Clean
  Air Act to use the "bubble" approach to
  stationary sources, i.e., treating one plant as a
  single source, which gave more flexibility in
  trading off emissions between different processes
  in the plant

2
Chevron Step One

• Did congress give specific guidance in the
  statute?
• This can be positive or negative - i.e., the
  statute might allow the action, or clearly
  prohibit it

3
Chevron Step Two

• If congress did not speak directly to the issue,
  is the agency's interpretation reasonable under
  the general intent of the enabling act?

4
Did Congress speak directly to this issue?

• Why did Congress want to balance in enforcing the
  Clean Air Act?
• The economic interest in continued industrial
  development and cleaning up the environment
• Why did Congress not spell out how it wanted the
  law to be enforced?
• Requires changing technical expertise
• Political Hot Potato

5
How do you decide congressional intent?

• What is in the law itself?
• What is in the formal legislative history, i.e.,
  committee documents and the like?
• What was said at hearings on the statute?

6
How can legislative history be manipulated?

• Ever see those speeches to an empty chamber?
• You can introduce reports that were never
  approved or reviewed by a committee
• The committee can mask its view of the law with
  bogus history
• Scalia usually is against legislative history and
  Breyer is for it, but in some cases like the FDA
  Tobacco Case they switch roles.

7
What did the Court Rule?

• What did the court find in step two about the
  legality of the EPA standard?
• The bubble was OK
• How is step two very much like the arbitrary and
  capricious standard?

8
How are Courts and Agencies Different?

• What does the United States Supreme Court say is
  different about the roles of courts and agencies
  in resolving political questions?
• The court must be neutral
• The agency should carry out the executive's
  policies

9
What factors indicate to the court that the
agency is probably correct?
10

• 1) Procedure - was there a full notice and
  comment process, which would tend to identify
  legal problems

11

• 2) Thoroughness of consideration - how well does
  the agency make and document its rational for the
  interpretation?

12

• 3) Contemporaneous Construction - does the
  interpretation date back to the drafting of the
  law and was the agency involved in the drafting?

13

• 4) Long-standing construction

14

• 5) Consistency - is it consistent with the
  agency's interpretation of similar laws?

15

• 6) Reliance - have people been relying on the
  interpretation?

16

• 7) Reenactment - did congress endorse the
  interpretation in some manner?

• This usually happens by congress knowing about
  the interpretation while it is amending the law,
  and not changing the law to block the
  interpretation.