Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. [1984]

467 U.S. 837 (1984) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

administrative lawadministrative lawenvironmental law

Issue

When should courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute?

Held

The Court articulated a two-step deference framework; that framework was later overruled by Loper Bright.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Central administrative law precedent for agency deference history.

Facts

EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act term stationary source in a permitting rule.

Issue

When should courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute?

Held

The Court articulated a two-step deference framework; that framework was later overruled by Loper Bright.

Ratio Decidendi

Chevron deference is no longer controlling after Loper Bright but remains historically important.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that statutory ambiguity can reflect congressional delegation to agencies.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (467 U.S. 837 (1984)) strengthens a administrative law answer because the case reflects the principle that Chevron deference is no longer controlling after Loper Bright but remains historically important. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as When should courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Central administrative law precedent for agency deference history.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources