19415 Deerfield Avenue

Suite 312

Leesburg, VA 20176

Phone: (703) 554-6100

Fax: (703) 554-6119


3100 Broadway

Suite 1210

Kansas City, MO 64111

Phone: (816) 931-5559

Fax: (816) 931-1115

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon

No Legal Advice Intended:  This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments.  Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments.  These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances.  You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. 

Third Party Websites:  As a convenience, this website may provide links to third-party websites.  Such linked websites are not under the control of Landmark Legal Foundation or Landmark ("Landmark"), and Landmark assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites. 

© 2017 by Landmark Legal Foundation

September 29, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Landmark files amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs in State of Missouri v. State of California.

February 8, 2018

Please reload

Featured Posts

So, what is the Chevron Doctrine?

September 10, 2017


Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a lawsuit originally filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  It arose from a dispute over language in the Clean Air Act that required "new or modified major statutory sources" of air pollution to comply with strict rules.  During the presidency of Democrat Jimmy Carter, the EPA determined that the "source" could be any piece of equipment; the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan later said that "source" meant the entire plant.  The NRDC sued to prohibit the EPA from reinterpreting its duty under the law.


In a 1984 decision, the Supreme Court said that when Congress enacted a law that does not have a clear meaning, courts should defer to the federal agency applying the law unless its interpretation is unreasonable.  The court reasoned that experts at agencies had been entrusted by Congress to make informed decisions.  This has become known as the Chevron Doctrine.  The trouble is that courts have by and large abandoned their duty to review agency decisions altogether by creating a false presumption in favor of agency bureaucrats.


The Supreme Court's decision set up a two-step approach, in which courts first determined whether laws were ambiguous, then decided whether the agencies' interpretations were sound.  In the decades since, courts have commonly deferred to agencies not just on the environment but in areas touched by laws such as the Federal Communications Act and the Occupational Safety and Healthy Act.


As the Chevron Doctrine has evolved, federal agencies, Congress, and the executive branch avoid accountability by deferring decision-making authority to unelected bureaucrats in Washington. Congress passes vague laws and leaves the tough decisions to nameless functionaries.  The result is that the government moves farther and farther away from the People.


Chevron began as a reasonable and measured approach to determining the scope of administrative authority.  Federal bureaucracies however, will always push the bounds of the law and expand their power to regulate every aspect of our lives.  In the past 30 years, agencies such as the EPA have relied on Chevron deference as a legal justification for massive expansion of their power and authority.  Overturning Chevron will curb the power of the federal government and restore accountability to those branches of the government that answer directly to the people.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us

I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!

Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square