an agency finds a fact that that the issue was not based is at odds with the ALJ and on testimonial inference but it is based on a testimonial rather derivative, i.e. shows inference judges may differ on which it is) Judicial Review- Statutory While the APA seems to Chevron v Natural To determine whether Interpretation provide that courts should Res. Def. Council: deference is due: apply de novo review of an adopting a 2 step Whether congress has agency’s resolution of legal process for review of directly spoken to the questions such as the an agency’s statutory precise question at meaning of the statute, construction . The issue. If the intent of congress’ delegation of issue here was the congress is clear, that authority to the agency and term “stationary is the end of the the agency’s expertise in source” under the matter the subject of the technical CAA included If the statute is silent statute weigh in favor of multiple individual or ambiguous with deference. sources or the entire respect to the specific plant. issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute Judicial Review- Statutory While textualists would Alliance for Step 1 of chevron permits Interpretation stop statutory Community Media v rules of statutory interpretation at its plain FCC: Court rejected construction such as meaning, like Justice Scalia, the argument that reference to expressio tool others would use because congress and legislative history traditional tools of specifically include statutory interpretation deadlines in one such expressio tool and provisions that it did legislative history. not want a deadline Expressio tool interprets a in another statute’s explicit direction provisiosn. Instead, it for something in one meant to leave the provision and its absence deadline up to the in a parallel provision as agency. Moreover, implying congressional that congress intent to negate intent for x specifically in the second provision. contemplated and did Legislative history, on the not include other hand is useful something in legis. because if congress History means they expressly contemplated expressly reject it. something and then did not include it in the statute, it may be implied that congress intended to reject it. Judicial Review- Statutory Step 2 – At step two, the City of Chicago v NOTE- this case leaves Interpretation court is extremely Environmental Def. unclear whether if an agency
an agency finds a fact that is at odds with the ALJ and it is based on a testimonial inference that the issue was not based on testimonial inference but rather derivative, i.e. shows judges may differ on which it is) Judicial Review- Statutory Interpretation While the APA seems to provide that courts should apply de novo review of an agency’s resolution of legal questions such as the meaning of the statute, congress’ delegation of authority to the agency and the agency’s expertise in the subject of the technical statute weigh in favor of deference. Chevron v Natural Res. Def. Council: adopting a 2 step process for review of an agency’s statutory construction . The issue here was the term “stationary source” under the CAA included multiple individual sources or the entire plant. To determine whether deference is due: Whether congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of congress is clear, that is the end of the matter If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute Judicial Review- Statutory Interpretation While textualists would stop statutory interpretation at its plain meaning, like Justice Scalia, others would use traditional tools of statutory interpretation such expressio tool and legislative history. Expressio tool interprets a statute’s explicit direction for something in one provision and its absence in a parallel provision as implying congressional intent to negate intent for x in the second provision. Legislative history, on the other hand is useful because if congress expressly contemplated something and then did not include it in the statute, it may be implied that congress intended to reject it. Alliance for Community Media v FCC: Court rejected the argument that because congress specifically include deadlines in one provisions that it did not want a deadline in another provisiosn. Instead, it meant to leave the deadline up to the agency. Moreover, that congress specifically contemplated and did not include something in legis. History means they expressly reject it. Step 1 of chevron permits rules of statutory construction such as reference to expressio tool and legislative history Judicial Review- Statutory Interpretation Step 2 – At step two, the court is extremely City of Chicago v Environmental Def. NOTE- this case leaves unclear whether if an agency
Administrative%20Law%20-%20Glicksman%20-%20Fall%202010.docx