467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Should courts defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute it administers when the statute is ambiguous?
The Supreme Court established a two-step framework for determining whether to grant deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute. First, the court must determine whether the statute is ambiguous regarding the specific issue. If the statute is found to be ambiguous, the second step requires the court to assess whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. If both conditions are met, courts should defer to the agency's interpretation.
The Supreme Court held that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act was reasonable and that the courts should defer to the agency's interpretation. The Court found that the statute was ambiguous and that the EPA's definition of stationary sources fell within the bounds of reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the Court upheld the lower court's decision in favor of the NRDC and the EPA.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council is a foundational case in administrative law that has shaped the relationship between courts and federal agencies. The Chevron doctrine has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, reinforcing the principle that courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This case is particularly important for law students as it illustrates the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches and highlights the role of administrative agencies in the regulatory process.