Federal agencies should be limited in how they interpret their...
Federal agencies should be limited in how they interpret their own jurisdictions through Chevron doctrine deference, a free-market think tank said: “If there is no jurisdiction, there is no deference.” The Supreme Court case City of Arlington, Texas, et al…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
v. FCC directly addressees the question and could produce the “most significant administrative law decision in a decade,” Free State Foundation adviser and Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler wrote in a Monday Free State blog post (http://xrl.us/bn3kvf). Adler detailed the way that Congress and other legal avenues determine proper jurisdiction. “Courts, not agencies, have the comparative advantage in resolving matters of jurisdiction,” he said. “Agencies should only receive Chevron deference when they are exercising that authority Congress has delegated, and they should not receive deference when facing the question of whether the agency has authority at all.” The high court received opening briefs last week, will get supporting briefs this week and FCC response Dec. 19 (CD Nov 21 p1).