The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: The Chevron Doctrine Page: 4 of 11
This report is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Research Service Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Jurisprudence o f Justice John Paul Stevens: The Chevron Doctrine
Introduction
One of Justice Stevens's most lasting jurisprudential legacies is his opinion in Chevron v. Natural
Resources Defense Council.' The 1984 case, a landmark decision in both administrative law and
separation of powers, established the legal framework that has largely governed the degree of
deference a court will accord a federal agency in interpreting and implementing statutes. What
began as an unexceptional case focusing on the meaning of the phrase "stationary source" in the
Clean Air Act has developed into one of the most frequently cited cases ever. Although often
relied on as an authority, the case has also engendered significant confusion. Questions of when,
and how, to apply the two-step Chevron analysis laid out by Justice Stevens, which is simple in
theory yet remarkably varied in its application, have consistently challenged federal judges.
Moreover, although Justice Stevens has spent the last quarter century working to clarify the
Chevron doctrine, as he departs the Court he may find himself outside the majority position on at
least one key aspect of the test's application.
This report will detail the Chevron decision, describe the two-part test laid out by Justice Stevens
for determining whether to accord deference to an agency interpretation, and discuss the
rationales underlying that judicial deference. Finally, the report will consider the significant
influence the opinion has had within administrative law, while highlighting a number of
unresolved questions relating to the proper application of the Chevron test.
The Chevron Decision
The facts of the Chevron case centered on the controversial "bubble concept."3 The 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) required states that had failed to reach national air
quality standards to institute a permitting program to facilitate a decrease in air pollution
emissions from "any new or modified major stationary sources."4 The term "stationary sources"
was not defined by the CAA. In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
a regulation that allowed states to adopt the "bubble concept"~ or "plantwide" concept of
"stationary sources" under their permit programs.5 Such an interpretation calculated plant
emissions as a whole, rather than calculating emission from each individual pollution-emitting
device. Therefore, a plant, which often contained more than one source of air pollution, could
increase emissions from one device as long as there was a corresponding decrease within the
same "industrial grouping" or "bubble.",6 The Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set aside the regulation-arguing
that such an interpretation of "stationary source" was contrary to the statute's purpose of
1 Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 839 (1984).
2 Chevron is reportedly the most frequently cited case in administrative law and currently the second most frequently
cited case ever behind Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Thomas W. Merrill, The Story of Chevron:
The Making of an Accidental Landmark, Administrative Law Stories 399 (Peter Strauss ed., 2006).
3~ Chevron, 467 U.S. at 839 (1984).
4 42 U.S.C. 7502.
s 40 C.F.R. 51.18.
6 Chevron, 467 U.S. at 839.Congressional Research Service1
1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: The Chevron Doctrine, report, May 26, 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808768/m1/4/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.