Case Law West Virginia v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

West Virginia v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

Document Cited Authorities (71) Cited in (146) Related (5)

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record, Bruce S. Gelber, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Meghan E. Greenfield, Eric G. Hostetler, Benjamin Carlisle Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Carroll Wade, McGuffey III, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA, Timothy L. McHugh, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Richmond, VA, Misha Tseytlin, Counsel of Record, Kevin M. Leroy, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Chicago, IL, for Respondents.

F. William Brownell, Erica N. Peterson, Hunton Andrews, Kurth LLP, Washington, DC, Elbert Lin, Counsel of Record, Hunton Andrews, Kurth LLP, Richmond, VA, for respondent, America's Power.

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Lindsay S. See, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Michael R. Williams* , Special Counsel, Thomas T. Lampman, Caleb A. Seckman, Assistant Solicitors General, Office of the West Virginia, Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner State of West Virginia.

Steve Marshall, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, State of Alaska, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of Georgia. Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General, State of Indiana, Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, State of Kansas, Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Austin Knudsen, Attorney General, State of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, State of Nebraska. Dave Yost, Attorney General, State of Ohio, Mike Hunter, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, State of South Carolina. Jason Ravnsborg, Attorney General, State of South Dakota. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas. Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, State of Utah, Bridget Hill, Attorney General, State of Wyoming, Tate Reeves, Governor, State of Mississippi, By counsel: Joseph Anthony Scalfani, Jackson, MS, for Petitioners.

Emily C. Schilling, Counsel of Record, Holland & Hart LLP, Washington, DC, Tina R. Van Bockern, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, for Respondents.

Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, State of North Dakota, Matthew Sagsveen, Solicitor General, Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General, North Dakota Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, Paul M. Seby* , Special Assistant, Attorney General, Matthew K. Tieslau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO, for petitioner State of North Dakota.

Kevin Poloncarz, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA, S. Conrad Scott, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, Beth S. Brinkmann, Counsel of Record, Eric Chung, Laura E. Dolbow, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Power Company Respondents.

Jeffrey Prieto, General Counsel, Gautam Srinivasan, Associate General Counsel, Matthew C. Marks, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Stephanie L. Hogan, Assistant General Counsel, Howard J. Hoffman, Abirami Vijayan, Scott Jordan, Ryland Shengzhi Li, Nora Greenglass, Daniel P. Schramm, Stacey Simone Garfinkle, Attorneys, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Meghan E. Greenfield, Eric G. Hostetler, Chloe H. Kolman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondents.

Sean H. Donahue Counsel of Record, David T. Goldberg, Donahue, Goldberg & Littleton, Washington, D.C., for Non-Governmental Organization and Trade Association Respondents.

Lisa S. Blatt, Counsel of Record, Matthew B. Nicholson, Kari M. Lorentson* , Mihir Khetarpal** , Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for Amici Curiae.

Charles T. Wehland, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Jeffery D. Ubersax, Kushner & Hamed Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, Yaakov M. Roth, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Brinton Lucas, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Martin T. Booher, Joshua T. Wilson, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, OH, Mark W. DeLaquil, Andrew M. Grossman, Counsel of Record, Jenna M. Lorence, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Drew H. Wrigley, Attorney General, State Of North Dakota, Matthew Sagsveen, Solicitor General, Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General, North Dakota Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, Paul M. Seby *, Special Assistant, Attorney General, Christopher L. Bell, Matthew K. Tieslau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO, for Petitioner State of North Dakota.

Charles T. Wehland, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Jeffery D. Ubersax, Kushner & Hamed Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH 44114, Yaakov M. Roth, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey R. Johnson, J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave., Washington, D.C. for Petitioner.

Michael J. Myers, Senior Counsel, Andrew G. Frank Brian M. Lusignan Assistant Attorneys General. Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood* , Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Matthew W. Grieco, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY, Rob Bonta, Attorney General State of California, Sacramento, CA, Phil J. Weiser, Attorney General State of Colorado, Denver, CO, William Tong, Attorney General State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General State of Delaware, Wilmington, DE, Holly T. Shikada, Attorney General State of Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General State of Maine, Augusta, ME, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Maura Healey, Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, Dana Nessel, Attorney General State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, Keith Ellison, Attorney General State of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General State of Nevada, Carson City, NV, Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General State of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General State of Oregon, Salem, OR, Josh Shapiro, Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA, Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General State of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General State of Washington, Seattle, WA, Joshua L. Kaul, Attorney General State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney City of Boulder, Boulder, CO, Celia Meza, Corporation Counsel City of Chicago, Chicago, IL , Kristin M. Bronson, City Attorney City and County of Denver, Denver, CO, Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Georgia Pestana, Corporation Counsel City of New York, New York, NY, Diana P. Cortes, City Solicitor City of Philadelphia, One Parkway Building, Philadelphia, PA, Thomas F. Pepe, City Attorney City of South Miami, Coral Gables, FL, for Respondents.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a "standard of performance" for their emission of certain pollutants into the air. 84 Stat. 1683, 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(1). That standard may be different for new and existing plants, but in each case it must reflect the "best system of emission reduction" that the Agency has determined to be "adequately demonstrated" for the particular category. §§ 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d). For existing plants, the States then implement that requirement by issuing rules restricting emissions from sources within their borders.

Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the "best system of emission reduction" for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.

The question before us is whether this broader conception of EPA's authority is within the power granted to it by the Clean Air Act.

I
A

The Clean Air Act establishes three main regulatory programs to control air pollution from stationary sources such as power plants. Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et seq. One program is the New Source Performance Standards program of Section 111, at issue here. The other two are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, set out in Sections 108 through 110 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7408 – 7410, and the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program, set out in Section 112, § 7412. To understand the place and function of Section 111 in the statutory scheme, some background on the other two programs is in order.

The NAAQS program addresses air pollutants that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," and "the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources." § 7408(a)(1). After identifying such pollutants, EPA establishes a NAAQS for each. The NAAQS represents "the maximum airborne concentration of [the] pollutant that the public health can...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit – 2022
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"... ... upon certification by the school and the training agency that the practical training cannot be accomplished in a ... , the district court should also treat the effect of West Virginia v. EPA , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit – 2022
Texas v. United States, 21-40680
"... ... ; State of Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of West" Virginia; State of Kansas; State of Mississippi, Plaintiffs\xE2" ... After we heard oral argument on July 6, 2022, the agency promulgated a final rule 50 F.4th 512 on August 30, 2022 ... Customs and Border Prot., et al. (June 15, 2012) (DACA Memorandum) (ROA.350-52), ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit – 2023
Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su
"... ... , AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, Arlington, Virginia, Timothy S. Bishop, Brett E. Legner, MAYER BROWN LLP, ... clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated ... v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Kavanaugh, J., ... that Congress' meant to confer such authority." West Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2023
Sos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
"... ... to defend it here. See West Virginia v. Env't Prot ... Agency , 142 S.Ct. 2587, ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2022
Wymore v. City of Cedar Rapids
"... ... West Virginia v ... EPA , — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2606, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 86 Núm. 2, June 2023 – 2023
"THE TIMOROUS MAY STAY AT HOME": JUDGE CARDOZO'S PROPHECY IN CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE.
"...Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; then quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; and then quoting Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 158). (421) West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (425) Id. at 2599. (426) See id. at 2602-04. (427) See id. at 2605. (428) See EPA. THE CLEAN POWER PLAN BY THE NUMBERS 1 (2015). https://aroh..."
Document | Núm. 111-3, March 2023 – 2023
The Education-Democracy Nexus and Educational Subordination
"...142 S. Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022). 390. N.Y. State Rif‌le & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2156 (2022). 391. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2616 (2022). 392. 142 S. Ct. 1987 (2022). 393. 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022). 394. 401 F. Supp. 3d 207, 208 (D. Me. 2019), aff’d , 979 F.3d 21 (1s..."
Document | – 2024
AD HOC CONSTRUCTIONS OF PENAL STATUTES.
"...(quoting Amy Coney Barrett, Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. L. REV. 109, 123 (2010))); West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2641 (2022) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (characterizing certain substantive canons as "get-out-of-text-free cards"); Benjamin Eidelson & Matthew C. S..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Environmental Crimes
"...an “administrative compliance order” without a “full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal”). 71. W.V. v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). 72. Id. at 2599, 2610–16; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d) (setting forth statutory regime for reulating power plants by..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 5, March 2023 – 2023
Statutory Structure.
"...that Congress" meant to confer such authority on the agency. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159-60; see also West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2607-09 (2022) (citing Brown & Williamson for this (262.) The statute defines "drug" to include "articles (other than food) intended t..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Litigants Can Bring Constitutional Challenges To Agency Enforcement In Federal District Court
"...1341 (2021) (rejecting the FTC's ability to obtain restitution or disgorgement in addition to injunctive relief); West Virginia v. EPA,142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (holding the EPA lacked authority to impose emissions caps through a pollution-shifting scheme). This is a significant change to exis..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2025
EPA Launches Historic Deregulatory Initiative: Key Legal Risks And Strategic Takeaways
"...is "adequately demonstrated," a required element of the BSER standard. Legal challenges could also invoke the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA,10 which applied the major questions doctrine to restrict EPA's authority to impose system-wide generation-shifting measures'raising..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2023
FTC Prohibits Interlocking Directorate And Enforces Standalone Violation Of Section 5 Of The FTC Act
"...25. Id. at 10. 26. Id. at 7; see, e.g., W. Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2599 (2022); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cochran, 142 S. Ct. 2707 (2023); Axon Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 142 S. Ct. 895 To subscribe to Cahill Publications Click Here The content of this article ..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2024
The End Of Chevron?'What It Would Mean For Lower Courts, Federal Agencies, And Regulated Industry
"...to executive agencies major questions of political or economic import. The Chief Justice put it this way in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022): '[I]n certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us 'relu..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2024
Practical Implications Of FinCEN's New AML Rule For Investment Advisers
"...Cir. 2024). 3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024). 4. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024). 5. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022); Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 144 S. Ct. 2440 6. Customer Identification Programs for Register..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 86 Núm. 2, June 2023 – 2023
"THE TIMOROUS MAY STAY AT HOME": JUDGE CARDOZO'S PROPHECY IN CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE.
"...Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; then quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; and then quoting Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 158). (421) West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (425) Id. at 2599. (426) See id. at 2602-04. (427) See id. at 2605. (428) See EPA. THE CLEAN POWER PLAN BY THE NUMBERS 1 (2015). https://aroh..."
Document | Núm. 111-3, March 2023 – 2023
The Education-Democracy Nexus and Educational Subordination
"...142 S. Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022). 390. N.Y. State Rif‌le & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2156 (2022). 391. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2616 (2022). 392. 142 S. Ct. 1987 (2022). 393. 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022). 394. 401 F. Supp. 3d 207, 208 (D. Me. 2019), aff’d , 979 F.3d 21 (1s..."
Document | – 2024
AD HOC CONSTRUCTIONS OF PENAL STATUTES.
"...(quoting Amy Coney Barrett, Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. L. REV. 109, 123 (2010))); West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2641 (2022) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (characterizing certain substantive canons as "get-out-of-text-free cards"); Benjamin Eidelson & Matthew C. S..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Environmental Crimes
"...an “administrative compliance order” without a “full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal”). 71. W.V. v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). 72. Id. at 2599, 2610–16; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d) (setting forth statutory regime for reulating power plants by..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 5, March 2023 – 2023
Statutory Structure.
"...that Congress" meant to confer such authority on the agency. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159-60; see also West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2607-09 (2022) (citing Brown & Williamson for this (262.) The statute defines "drug" to include "articles (other than food) intended t..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit – 2022
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"... ... upon certification by the school and the training agency that the practical training cannot be accomplished in a ... , the district court should also treat the effect of West Virginia v. EPA , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit – 2022
Texas v. United States, 21-40680
"... ... ; State of Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of West" Virginia; State of Kansas; State of Mississippi, Plaintiffs\xE2" ... After we heard oral argument on July 6, 2022, the agency promulgated a final rule 50 F.4th 512 on August 30, 2022 ... Customs and Border Prot., et al. (June 15, 2012) (DACA Memorandum) (ROA.350-52), ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit – 2023
Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su
"... ... , AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, Arlington, Virginia, Timothy S. Bishop, Brett E. Legner, MAYER BROWN LLP, ... clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated ... v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Kavanaugh, J., ... that Congress' meant to confer such authority." West Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2023
Sos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
"... ... to defend it here. See West Virginia v. Env't Prot ... Agency , 142 S.Ct. 2587, ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2022
Wymore v. City of Cedar Rapids
"... ... West Virginia v ... EPA , — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2606, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Litigants Can Bring Constitutional Challenges To Agency Enforcement In Federal District Court
"...1341 (2021) (rejecting the FTC's ability to obtain restitution or disgorgement in addition to injunctive relief); West Virginia v. EPA,142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (holding the EPA lacked authority to impose emissions caps through a pollution-shifting scheme). This is a significant change to exis..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2025
EPA Launches Historic Deregulatory Initiative: Key Legal Risks And Strategic Takeaways
"...is "adequately demonstrated," a required element of the BSER standard. Legal challenges could also invoke the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA,10 which applied the major questions doctrine to restrict EPA's authority to impose system-wide generation-shifting measures'raising..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2023
FTC Prohibits Interlocking Directorate And Enforces Standalone Violation Of Section 5 Of The FTC Act
"...25. Id. at 10. 26. Id. at 7; see, e.g., W. Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2599 (2022); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cochran, 142 S. Ct. 2707 (2023); Axon Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 142 S. Ct. 895 To subscribe to Cahill Publications Click Here The content of this article ..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2024
The End Of Chevron?'What It Would Mean For Lower Courts, Federal Agencies, And Regulated Industry
"...to executive agencies major questions of political or economic import. The Chief Justice put it this way in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022): '[I]n certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us 'relu..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2024
Practical Implications Of FinCEN's New AML Rule For Investment Advisers
"...Cir. 2024). 3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024). 4. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024). 5. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022); Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 144 S. Ct. 2440 6. Customer Identification Programs for Register..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial