Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is deference in the context of the administrative state?

Deference, or judicial deference, is a principle of judicial review in which a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing federal agency actions, including Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference. Learn about state-level responses to deference here.

Supreme Court of the United States
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Reference: 556 U.S. 208
Term: 2008
Important Dates
Argued: December 2, 2008
Decided: April 1, 2009
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit opinion reversed and remanded
Majority
Antonin Scalia • Chief Justice John Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • John Paul Stevens • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • David Souter


Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. is a 2008 case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of cost-benefit analysis was permissible when formulating regulations under the Clean Water Act.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The EPA allowed electricity generating or transmitting facilities to receive variances from national performance standards if facilities could show that the costs of compliance would be significantly greater than the benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned the regulations holding that the EPA used cost-benefit analysis in an impermissible way.
  • The issue: Whether the EPA is permitted to use cost-benefit analysis in determining the content of regulations under a section of the Clean Water Act.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court's ruling. It held that a reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act allowed the EPA to use cost-benefit analysis when making the challenged regulations.[1]


    • Why it matters: The ruling is an example of the U.S. Supreme Court applying Chevron deference to a question about agency interpretations of law. The majority deferred to the EPA's determination that the Clean Water Act allowed it to consider site-specific cost-benefit variances to a broader set of regulations.[1]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 1, 2009: U.S. Supreme Court decision announced
    • December 2, 2008: Oral argument
    • April 14, 2008: Petition granted
    • November 2, 2007: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 25, 2007: The Second Circuit Court ruled on the case

    Background

    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Judicial control

    •Court cases
    •Legislation
    •Major arguments
    •Reform proposals
    •Scholarly work
     •Timeline

    More pillars
    •Agency control
    • Executive control
    •Legislative control
    • Public control
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
    Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

    The case

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a set of regulations under the Clean Water Act and environmental groups and various states challenged them. The regulations set national performance standards that applied to over 500 electricity generation and transmission facilities. The rules also required covered facilities to reduce the negative impact that their water cooling systems had on aquatic organisms. The EPA allowed facilities to receive variances from the national performance standards if they could show that the costs of compliance would be significantly greater than the benefits.[1]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned the regulations holding that the EPA used cost-benefit analysis in an impermissible way. The Second Circuit ruled that the EPA could only consider whether the costs of the regulations could be "reasonably borne by the industry" or "in determining which remedial technologies are the most cost-effective." The court held that the EPA went beyond its authority when it allowed for consideration of the best net benefits during a remediation case. The case then came before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compare costs with benefits in determining the 'best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact' at cooling water intake structures."[3]

    Oral argument

    Oral arguments were held on December 2, 2008.[1]

    Audio

    You can listen to an audio recording of the oral argument here.

    Transcript

    • Transcript of the oral argument:[4]

    Outcome

    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court's ruling with a 5-4 vote. The majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.[1] Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.[1]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia cited Chevron and argued that a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act provided the EPA with the discretion to employ cost-benefit analysis in the context of the challenged regulations.[1]

    “ In the last analysis, even respondents ultimately recognize that some form of cost-benefit analysis is permissible. They acknowledge that the statute’s language is 'plainly not so constricted as to require EPA to require industry petitioners to spend billions to save one more fish or plankton.' This concedes the principle—the permissibility of at least some cost-benefit analysis—and we see no statutory basis for limiting its use to situations where the benefits are de minimis rather than significantly disproportionate.


    We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards and in providing for cost-benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations.[5][1][6]

    		”


    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He agreed with the majority that the statute allowed the EPA to compare costs and benefits, but argued that the legislative history revealed an intent to restrict the use of cost-benefit comparisons. He also argued that the EPA did not explain why it changed the standard it used to weigh costs and benefits, violating precedent established by State Farm in 1983.[1]

    Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the Clean Water Act prohibits the EPA from using cost-benefit analysis when setting the regulatory standards at issue in the case.[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 JUSTIA, "Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009)" accessed October 5, 2018
    2. ↑ Oyez, "Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.," accessed October 5, 2018
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc.," accessed September 13, 2019
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper Inc. Transcript of Oral Argument," argued December 2, 2008
    5. ↑ Internal citations and quotations have been omitted
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._Riverkeeper,_Inc.&oldid=9933878"