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
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
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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
What factors indicate to the court that the
agency is probably correct?

1) Procedure - was there a full notice and
comment process, which would tend to identify
legal problems

2) Thoroughness of consideration - how well does
the agency make and document its rational for the
interpretation?

3) Contemporaneous Construction - does the
interpretation date back to the drafting of the law
and was the agency involved in the drafting?

4) Long-standing construction

5) Consistency - is it consistent with the agency's
interpretation of similar laws?

6) Reliance - have people been relying on the
interpretation?

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.