Search Results:

 QPReport
own statutory jurisdiction should be evaluated under Chevron, did the Fifth Circuit improperly apply Chevron? 3. Did the FCC usurp the jurisdiction and

 QPReport
not yet conclusively resolved the question of whether Chevron applies in the context of an agency's this Court's guidance, a court should apply Chevron to review an agency's determination of its own

 19-296 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (03/02/2020)
This Court has often declined to apply Chevron deference when the government fails to invoke it. See in part). That obligation went unfulfilled here. Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful

 QPReport
the District Court from engaging in a Chevron analysis, and that the District Court was required to of jurisdiction to engage in a traditional Chevron analysis and require automatic deference to an

 21-972 Buffington v. McDonough (11/07/22)
Given that asserted ambiguity, the court invoked Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Greenberg contended that themajority’s invocation of Chevron was “nothing more than arubber stamping

 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024)
843. In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Pp. 7–35.(a) Article III of the

 19-402 Baldwin v. United States (02/24/2020)
My skepticism of Brand X begins at its foundation— Chevron deference. In 1984, a bare quorum of six Justicesdecided Chevron. The Court reasoned that “if [a] statute issilent