Remove Administrative Law Remove Court Decisions Remove Legal Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Decision Raises Big Questions About SEC’s Authority

Intelligize Blog

Have you heard about the big Supreme Court decision that came down a couple weeks ago? For roughly 40 years, administrative law in the United States has adhered to the Chevron doctrine, so named for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Last month, the Supreme Court’s holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v.

article thumbnail

Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula

SCOTUSBlog

The Chevron doctrine, a pillar of administrative law, also looms large in the case. Natural Resources Defense Council , determines when a federal court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. However, if the statutory language is ambiguous, the court turns to step two. HHS’s arguments.

Statute 95
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Allegations of racial bias in a death penalty trial

SCOTUSBlog

Cochran , the justices will decide whether federal district courts have the power to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s administrative law proceedings. The court will hold the other case raising that question, Ham v. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. rescheduled before the Jan.

article thumbnail

The SEC’s Final Climate Disclosure Rule Must Respond to Emerging Legal Risks

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Ultimately, the SEC will have to anticipate these types of legal challenges in finalizing a durable rule. When the SEC initially proposed the rule, the Supreme Court had not yet embraced the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), a new doctrine that constrains the function of the administrative state. Raimondo and Relentless v.

Legal 59
article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 44