Justice Scalia & the Evolution of Chevron Deference [Panel One]

For over thirty years, the seminal Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. NRDC has provided the principles used to determine the extent to which a court reviewing agency action should defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules as well as fill in “blanks” in the text. For much of his career on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia (and the Court) deferred to this decision. However, late in his tenure, Justice Scalia had begun to reconsider Chevron deference. For the Chevron example, in his opinions in King v. Burwell and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, Justice Scalia criticized agencies’ assertions of unprecedented power. This panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decision-making has evolved since and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of “Chevron deference.” How might Justice Scalia have come down on US v. Texas, net neutrality, or the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan”? Might his views have continued to evolve if he had remained on the Court? And what is the future of Chevron deference with the Roberts Court? Is a new balance between courts and agencies needed?
Welcome
--Hon. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General
--Introduction: Mr. Prerak Shah, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General
Panel One: Justice Scalia and the Evolution of Chevron Deference
--Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
--Prof. Ron Beal, Baylor University Law School
--Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel
--Prof. Aaron Nielson, Brigham Young University Law School
--Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
--Introduction: Ms. Karen Lugo, Director, Center for Tenth Amendment Action, Texas Public Policy Foundation
AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center
University of Texas at Austin
Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference | September 16 & 17, 2016
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Пікірлер: 4

  • @nateo200
    @nateo2004 жыл бұрын

    So 3 years later with over 150 Nominations to Article III positions, perhaps a preview with debate and speculation is in order?

  • @dav3miga
    @dav3miga7 жыл бұрын

    2min28sec - 2min51sec

  • @givemethemusicd
    @givemethemusicd3 жыл бұрын

    I must have missed a class. I thought there were only 3 branches of government. I missed the class on the legitimacy of agency bureaucracy being the 4th branch, and it having the same powers as the legislative branch in creating law. This is why the future of our country is circling the drain leading to the global sewer. What a shame. There is no good reason for it either, outside of hegemony and weak men/women. Hard Times create strong men/women, strong men/women create good times Good times create a-holes. a-holes create hard times. We are enjoying the vestiges of good times.

  • @givemethemusicd
    @givemethemusicd3 жыл бұрын

    Chevron Deference is synonymous with Arbitrary and Capricious. Wake up tyrants!

Келесі