Source: http://www.compliancetrendz.com/federal-regulatory-and-administrative-law-issues-impacted-by-recent-supreme-court-decisions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:22:14+00:00

Document:
In Yates, the Court considered whether a fishing boat’s captain was validly convicted of throwing undersized fish overboard, under a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which makes a felon of “[w]hoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document or tangible object.” The issue inYates was whether the discarded fish was a “tangible object” within the meaning of that provision, now codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1519. In a 4-1-4 decision, Justice Ginsburg for the plurality and Justice Alito concurring separately concluded that the provision did not apply to fish and therefore reversed Yates’ conviction.
In upholding the Rule, the Court first held that the phrase “established by a State,” in the context of the ACA was ambiguous. The Court, though, declined to accord the IRS Chevrondeference because it did not believe that Congress intended to delegate such a significant decision to an agency and further, the IRS has no expertise in health care.
3. Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) – the Regulatory Costs Must Be Considered Case.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, held that EPA was required to consider cost when it made the initial decision to regulate. The Court invoked the Chevrontest, which requires a court to analyze an agency’s interpretation of statutory language in two steps. First, if the statute’s meaning is unambiguous the court must apply that meaning and vacate any contrary agency interpretation. Second, if the statute is amenable to more than one meaning, the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation so long as it is reasonable.
4. City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) – the Agencies Can Generally Decide the Scope of their Own Jurisdiction Case.
The majority in Arlington rejected the distinction between jurisdictional (big, important) and nonjurisdictional (humdrum, run-of-the-mill) interpretations as the litmus test for accordingChevron deference. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, explained that “the distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretations is a mirage,” and “judges should not waste their time in the mental acrobatics needed to decide whether an agency’s interpretation of a statutory provision is ‘jurisdictional’ or ‘non-jurisdictional.’” Rather, “[n]o matter how it is framed, the question a court faces when confronted with an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers is always, simply, whether the agency has stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority.” If an agency action is outside of the bounds of its authority, deference is inappropriate because it would give the agency more authority than Congress intended. “Where Congress has established a clear line, the agency cannot go beyond it; and where Congress has established an ambiguous line, the agency can go no further than the ambiguity will fairly allow.” In this case, the majority concluded that Chevrondeference applied because “Congress has unambiguously vested the FCC with generalauthority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication, and the agency action at issue was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” Justice Breyer concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, but wrote a separate opinion.
5. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) – the Administrative Estoppel Case.
6. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) – the Agencies Can Reverse Interpretative Rules Case.
7. Dep’t of Transportation v. Assoc. of American Railroads, 135 S. Ct. 1225 (2015) – the Amtrak Is A Government Entity Case.
8. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) – the FTCA Statutes of Limitations Case.

References: § 1519
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.