E. Or. Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentBalmer, J.
The majority opinion reaches a result that may be sensible, but takes a path that is closed off by the federal caselaw that we are bound to follow. When an agency reasonably interprets an ambiguous statute by promulgating a **355rule, we must give deference to its interpretation. Here, the two agencies charged with administering the Clean Water Act (CWA) created rules interpreting some of its ambiguous terms; those definitions, to which we must defer, clearly resolve this case in petitioners' favor. The majority colors outside the lines of agency deference, and in the process ends up…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Thomas Jefferson University v. ShalalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.