{"id":12212,"date":"2024-07-08T13:47:35","date_gmt":"2024-07-08T17:47:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/acmanet.org\/?p=12212"},"modified":"2024-07-08T13:47:55","modified_gmt":"2024-07-08T17:47:55","slug":"in-washington-acma-insider-july-11-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/acmanet.org\/in-washington-acma-insider-july-11-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"In Washington – ACMA Insider – July 11, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In a major shift, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 reversed prior precedent that deferred to agencies implementing vague aspects of regulatory law. While a significant shift in legal theory, the decision does not remove the principle of deference to agencies to implement regulations, but rather limits it.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a pair of cases consolidated into one ruling, the majority wrote, \u201cCourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This undoes the prior standard under a 1984 case, Chevron v. NRDC<\/em> which created a two-step process for courts to use when evaluating regulatory actions that generally deferred to agency expertise. The first step was to see if the legislation directly spoke to the precise question.\u00a0If not, the second test was to see if the agency\u2019s decision while implementing the legislation was \u201creasonable.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n ACMA\u2019s legal counsel Sidley has prepared a briefing of the decision, which can be read here<\/a>. Sidley notes the Supreme Court held that Chevron deference is incompatible with the APA and with courts\u2019 paramount duty to interpret the laws that Congress enacts. However, agencies may continue to interpret and implement regulations when directed to do so by legislation itself.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This decision will likely result in fewer shifts in regulatory shifts between administrations of different parties.\u00a0As Sidley wrote, under the old Chevron <\/em>test, broad statutes are often susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations, statutes frequently changed meaning from administration to administration, and creative agencies were rarely stumped in their search for a broad statutory grant that would support specific policy or political objectives.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n ACMA will host a webinar in August on this topic. More information will come soon.\u00a0Please contact Dan Neumann<\/a> with any questions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Supreme Court Changes the Standard for Regulatory Legal Challenges In a major shift, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 reversed prior precedent that deferred to agencies implementing vague aspects […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insider"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n