![]() Capato, one of the decisions the Supreme Court released today, the Court unanimously held that the Social Security Administration’s interpretation of the Social Security Act was entitled to Chevron deference and reversed the decision of the appeals court. ![]() Capato: The Social Security Administration Defines “Children” A permissible construction is one that is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” In other words, it is a very low threshold of deference.Īstrue v. If the statute is ambiguous, then the court asks whether the agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous provision is based on a permissible construction of the statute. If it does, then the unambiguous meaning controls. Reasonableness in part turns on whether the statute unambiguously addresses the issue. Under Chevron, even if a court finds that another interpretation is reasonable, or even better than the agency’s interpretation, it must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which involved a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The principle is named for the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Martinez Gutierrez. In both Capato and Martinez Gutierrez, the Court relied on the doctrine known as Chevron deference in reaching its decision.Ĭhevron deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable. Supreme Court handed down three decisions: Astrue v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |