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

 

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 23:16, 14 June 2023 by Caitlin Styrsky (contribs) (Text replacement - "The Administrative State Project" to "Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Learning Journeys - test answers-incorrect.png

The correct answer was City of Arlington deference.



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