The major questions quartet
Begin with what is uncontroversial: nobody 'likes' to see "agencies asserting highly consequential power 'beyond' what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted." The challenge is how to determine when that is occurring, not how to feel about it when it do...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Harvard law review 2022-11, Vol.136 (1), p.262-318 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Begin with what is uncontroversial: nobody 'likes' to see "agencies asserting highly consequential power 'beyond' what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted." The challenge is how to determine when that is occurring, not how to feel about it when it does. That challenge has existed for as long as agencies have, and so it's one that our law has developed many tools to address. But in four important cases decided during the summer of 2021 and last Term, the Court crafted a new approach to tackling that problem by adopting a different and more potent variant of one of these older tools: the "major questions" exception to 'Chevron' deference. This Comment describes and evaluates the major questions quartet: the CDC eviction moratorium case, the OSHA vaccine mandate case, the CMS vaccine mandate case, and the EPA Clean Power Plan case. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0017-811X 2161-976X |