No. of Recommendations: 1
The decision does not prohibit agencies from engaging in rule-making. It undoes the presumption of correctness that applies to their interpretation of statutes. Chevron said that where statutes are ambiguous, courts should defer to what the agencies thought those statutes meant, rather than trying to resolve the ambiguity independently. Rule-making wasn't at issue, except to the extent that rules are often the subject of these types of disputes.
Thanks Albaby1. But won't this decision mean that there will be many more interventions by courts in things they have no expertise in? And those who don't like particular regulations will be tying agency managers up in court cases and preventing effective implementation of laws passed by Congress?
