Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Merrill, Thomas W

Titel

CHEVRON'S GHOST RIDES AGAIN

Ist Teil von

• Boston University law review, 2023-10, Vol.103 (6), p.1717-1739

Ort / Verlag

Boston: Boston University School of Law

Erscheinungsjahr

2023

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• INTRODUCTION Professor Gary Lawson has offered a remarkable account of the fate of the Chevron doctrine during a recent year in the Supreme Court, from August 2021 to June 2022.1 When one examines lower court decisions, petitions seeking review of those decisions, briefs filed by the parties, and transcripts of oral arguments, Chevron made frequent appearances during the year. No one knows for sure, because the Court has offered no explanation for ignoring Chevron. [...]a consensus emerges, all Members of the Court-including the minority who think Chevron is not flawed-have concluded that it is best to say nothing about Chevron lest they stake out a position that precludes them from contributing to a new consensus, if and when it emerges. In this sense, there should be no cause to overrule the decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc A3 The holding in the case was that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") acted properly in interpreting "stationary source" for purposes of the nonattainment provisions of the Clean Air Act to mean the entire plant as opposed to individual apertures within the plant.14 That result has been settled for nearly forty years and there is no reason to revisit it.15 There is a second reason why it would be inappropriate to "overrule" the Chevron decision. Eventually, Chevron became one of the most-cited opinions in American public law.22 Given its origins and its gradual acceptance by different Members of the Court, the Chevron doctrine has been refined over the years in a long series of decisions, many of which clarify and in some cases limit the doctrine.23 So the precise formulation of the question in terms