Thursday, June 11, 2020

ABA Urges Supreme Court to Restore Limits on Chevron Deference

The American Bankers Association (ABA) on June 8 filed its reply brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in the association’s challenge of the National Credit Union Administration’s 2016 field of membership rule.

In August, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of rule while remanding a portion related to redlining concerns. The court will grant ABA’s petition if four of the nine justices vote to accept the case.

In appealing, ABA argued that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “stretches Chevron deference past the breaking point” in ruling that NCUA could define a “local community” as a combined statistical area inhabited by up to 2.5 million people or define an entire state as a “rural district.” Under the Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine, courts defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of statutes they administer where Congress has not specifically addressed the question at issue.

In its reply brief, ABA said that NCUA sought to “dodge the issue” of Chevron deference. The association argued that the case does in fact present the question of whether an express delegation of definitional authority expands an agency’s discretion at Chevron step two, and that agencies are not granted “vast discretion” simply because of express delegation. “The Court should grant review and restore appropriate limits on Chevron deference,” ABA said.

Read the reply brief.

No comments:

Post a Comment


The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.