Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron decision, federal courts have typically applied a two-step analysis known as the “Chevron framework” to determine whether a court should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute.  SCOTUS has now agreed to hear the Loper case next Term in which the continued viability of the Chevron framework is being directly challenged. … Continue Reading

In its decision last week in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that severely limits the federal government’s jurisdiction over wetlands and tributaries.  Specifically, the Court rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory definition of what constitutes “Waters of the United States” subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). … Continue Reading

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which the petitioners are challenging the continued viability of the Chevron framework that courts typically invoke when reviewing a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute.  While Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo involves a regulation of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant potential implications for when courts should give deference to regulations issued by all federal agencies, including the CFPB, FTC, and federal banking agencies.… Continue Reading

At the end of last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case in which the question before the Court is whether it should overrule a line of cases instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, a doctrine sometimes referred to as “Auer deference.” … Continue Reading