MAJOR QUESTION OBJECTIONS

The Supreme Court constantly mediates the relationship between law and administration. Of the tools available for that task, none sees more use than the ubiquitous Chevron doctrine, which establishes the conditions for judicial deference to administrative interpretations of law. In part because of i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Harvard law review 2016-06, Vol.129 (8), p.2191-2212
Main Author: Harvard Law Review
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Administrative agencies
Administrative courts
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Analysis
CONGRESS
Court decisions and opinions
Decision making
Delegation of authority
Dissenting opinions
DRUG CONTROL
Environmental agencies
Exceptions (Law)
Government regulation
Interpretation and construction
Judicial process
Judicial review of administrative acts
Jurisdiction (International law)
Legal objections
Political questions and judicial power
Social aspects
Statutory interpretation
Statutory law
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Supreme Court constantly mediates the relationship between law and administration. Of the tools available for that task, none sees more use than the ubiquitous Chevron doctrine, which establishes the conditions for judicial deference to administrative interpretations of law. In part because of its centrality to administrative law, in part because the Court regularly tinkers with the doctrine, Chevron has inspired "a virtual cottage industry within the [legal] academy" that churns out a seemingly endless stream of Chevron-related praise, criticism, and analysis. One pocket of Chevron confusion concerns the mercurial "major question exception," under which the Court occasionally refuses to defer to an agency's interpretation of an economically or politically significant statutory provision. The academic commentary has alternately denounced and defended various rationales for the exception. The Supreme Court's latest resort to the major question exception, in 'King v. Burwell', has sparked a fresh round of critical examination.
ISSN:0017-811X
2161-976X