Cases

Question 1

Chevron (Facts)

Answer 1

Requirement to obtain permit for a machine. EPA made two regulations defining the machine, repealed one, enacted another. Sued on validity.

Question 2

Chevron (SCOTUS rule)

Answer 2

Upheld agency’s interpretation. Created a 2 step test.
1. Has congress spoken directly or is there ambiguity? 2. If not, the court must accept permissible/clear interpretation even if there is another choice that would be better.

Question 3

Chevron (SCOTUS justification)

Answer 3

1. Agencies are experts, courts are not. 2. Gap and ambiguities are unavoidable and the agency must resolve them. 3. Administrative officials are politically accountable.

Question 4

Chevron (Rule evolution)

Answer 4

How should step 1 resolve ambiguity? Unclear. Some look at text, some at legislative history.

Question 5

Riggs

Answer 5

Can grandson inherit from grandpa who he poisoned? Used imaginative reconstruction.

Question 6

Holy Trinity

Answer 6

Judges legislating there own ideas. Used purposivism and intentionalism.

Question 7

Problem With Purposivism/ntentionalism

Answer 7

Leg may not have thought of specific issue. Courts use imaginative reconstruction.

Question 8

TVA

Answer 8

Retroactive application. The continued funding was not repeal by implication.

Question 9

Nix

Answer 9

Ordinary v technical meaning.

Question 10

Smith

Answer 10

Ordinary usage?