The debate over when courts should defer to agency interpretations of federal statutes continues. The latest volley came last week in Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit deferred to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s interpretation of a law benefitting small renewable power facilities—over one judge’s vigorous dissent.
Solar Energy Industries is the most recent judicial battle over how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Chevron held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute when the statute is ambiguous or silent on an issue. Chevron also noted that, to decide whether the statute speaks to the issue (or instead is ambiguous or silent), courts should employ traditional tools of statutory construction.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]