News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

City of Arlington DeferenceB07052019: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Inventory category installation for: L009)
m (Text replacement - "The Administrative State Project" to "Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage")
 
Line 16: Line 16:
*[[Administrative Procedure Act]]
*[[Administrative Procedure Act]]
*[[Separation of powers]]
*[[Separation of powers]]
*[[The Administrative State Project]]
*[[Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage]]
*[[Chevron deference (doctrine)|''Chevron'' deference (doctrine)]]
*[[Chevron deference (doctrine)|''Chevron'' deference (doctrine)]]
*''[[Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council]]''
*''[[Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council]]''

Latest revision as of 23:15, 14 June 2023

Learning Journeys - test answers-correct.png

City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC was a 2013 United States Supreme Court case that upheld the idea that courts should defer to agencies when reviewing agency determinations about the extent of their own powers. At issue in the case was whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had legal authority to interpret part of the amended Communications Act of 1934. The majority held that under the Chevron deference doctrine the court should defer to the FCC's conclusion that the agency could interpret the act. Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent argued that the ruling expanded the Chevron doctrine and improperly empowered the administrative state.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The FCC set time limits for state and local governments to approve zoning requests related to wireless network towers and antennas. Arlington and San Antonio, Texas objected, arguing that the FCC did not have the authority to set those limits according to the relevant law. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the FCC, holding that Chevron applied to the question of whether the law allowed the FCC to make rules in the contested case.
  • The issue: Whether the Chevron deference doctrine applies to an agency's interpretation of its own jurisdiction.
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling. It held that agency conclusions based on permissible constructions of ambiguous statutes are entitled to deference under Chevron.[1]


    • See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 JUSTIA, "Arlington v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)" accessed October 31, 2018
    2. ↑ Oyez, "City of Arlington, TX v. FCC," accessed October 31, 2018
    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=City_of_Arlington_DeferenceB07052019&oldid=9158612"