www.nytimes.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
151.101.1.164
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html
Submission: On January 17 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On January 17 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM
POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083
<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083" data-testid="MagicLinkForm"
style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"><input name="response_type" type="hidden"
value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083
<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083" data-testid="MagicLinkForm"
style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"><input name="response_type" type="hidden"
value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>Text Content
Skip to contentSkip to site index Search & Section Navigation Section Navigation SEARCH U.S. SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEKLog in Wednesday, January 17, 2024 Today’s Paper SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEK U.S.|Conservative Justices Appear Skeptical of Agencies’ Regulatory Power https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html * Share full article * * * 321 Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Supported by SKIP ADVERTISEMENT CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES APPEAR SKEPTICAL OF AGENCIES’ REGULATORY POWER The justices considered whether to overrule the seminal 1984 Chevron decision, which requires judges to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. * Share full article * * * 321 * Read in app At the center of the cases at the Supreme Court on Wednesday is a key 1984 decision, which if overturned could threaten countless regulations and would transfer power away from executive agencies.Credit...Kent Nishimura for The New York Times By Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington Jan. 17, 2024Updated 2:08 p.m. ET Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to overturn or limit a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies and frustrated business groups hostile to government regulation. Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the fate of a foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril. The doctrine takes its name from a 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. Discarding it could threaten regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care, consumer safety, nuclear energy and government benefit programs. It would also transfer power from agencies to Congress and the courts. Under Chevron, judges must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In close cases, and there are many, the views of the agency take priority even if courts might have ruled differently. Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like. Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak Read 321 Comments * Share full article * * * 321 * Read in app Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT COMMENTS 321 Conservative Justices Appear Skeptical of Agencies’ Regulatory PowerSkip to Comments Share your thoughts. The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise. Comments are moderated for civility. SITE INDEX SITE INFORMATION NAVIGATION * © 2024 The New York Times Company * NYTCo * Contact Us * Accessibility * Work with us * Advertise * T Brand Studio * Your Ad Choices * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * Terms of Sale * Site Map * Canada * International * Help * Subscriptions Enjoy unlimited access to all of The Times. See subscription options