Difference between revisions of "Major questions doctrine"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a good start) |
(It is also known by the expression "major questions exception," because it is a narrow (and debatable) exception to a well-established precedent.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Major | + | '''Major questions doctrine''' is an independent, stand-alone exception to [[Chevron]] doctrine in [[administrative law]]. It is also known by the expression "major questions exception," because it is a narrow (and debatable) exception to a well-established precedent.<ref>http://harvardelr.com/2013/08/27/obituary-chevrons-major-questions-exception/</ref> |
In a nutshell, '''major question doctrine''' establishes that little or no deference will be allowed by courts in review of agency decisions that implicate major issues, such as whether the [[FDA]] has the authority to regulate tobacco. | In a nutshell, '''major question doctrine''' establishes that little or no deference will be allowed by courts in review of agency decisions that implicate major issues, such as whether the [[FDA]] has the authority to regulate tobacco. | ||
[[category:Administrative Law]] | [[category:Administrative Law]] | ||
Revision as of 01:41, October 16, 2015
Major questions doctrine is an independent, stand-alone exception to Chevron doctrine in administrative law. It is also known by the expression "major questions exception," because it is a narrow (and debatable) exception to a well-established precedent.[1]
In a nutshell, major question doctrine establishes that little or no deference will be allowed by courts in review of agency decisions that implicate major issues, such as whether the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco.