Chevron case

Chevron case (미국 셰브론 사건) refers to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. U.S. Supreme Court case] which sets forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.

Chevron case is famous for the doctrine of "administrative deference" (사법소극주의/司法消極主義), to the point that the Court itself has used the phrase "Chevron deference" in more recent cases.

Facts
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address states that had failed to attain the air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Defendant). "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

During the Carter administration, the EPA defined a source as any device in a plant [clarification needed] that produced pollution.

In 1981, after Ronald Reagan's election, the EPA adopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the total emissions from the plant itself did not increase. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental protection group, challenged the EPA regulation in federal court, which ruled in their favor. Chevron, an affected party, appealed the lower court's decision.

Legal Issue
The issue facing the Chevron court, therefore, was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency's own reading of a statute that it is charged with administering.

U.S. Supreme Court Holding
The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test"), where a reviewing court determines:
 * "First, always, is the question whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." If the Court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . Rather,
 * [I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

Importance
Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law, though some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

행정부는 법률에 의하여 위임받은 규정제정의 권한을 갖고 있으므로 의회가 이를 행정부에 위임한 경우에는 그러한 위임입법이 자의적이거나 법률과 저촉되지 않는 한 결정적이라고 보고, 의회가 위임한 것이 명시적이지 않을 때에는 법원이 독자적인 해석을 내리기보다는 행정청의 해석이 합리적인지 여부만 검토하면 된다고 함.

연방대법원은 의회의 입법연혁을 살펴볼 때 일정한 공장시설에 씌워진 가상의 방울(bubble)이 무엇인지 규정하려는 의도가 없었으므로 EPA의 해석이 합리적인 정책대안이라며 이를 존중해야 한다고 말함. 당초 EPA는 공기오염물질 배출원을 공장 전체 및 개개의 시설 이중으로 보았으나, 1981년 레이건 행정부가 들어서면서 행정규제완화 차원에서 일부 시설에서 오염물질의 배출이 증가하더라도 공장 전체적으로는 배출량이 감소하면 법에 저촉되지 않는다는 입장을 취하였음. 즉 공장 전체에 버블이 씌워져 있다고 본 것임

연방대법원이 EPA의 조치를 존중함에 따라 1990년에 개정된 대기정화법에 의하여 규정 이상의 대기오염물질을 배출한 기업도 정화시설을 가동하는 다른 기업과 오염물질 배출권의 거래를 할 수 있게 되었으며, 전세계적으로 탄소배출권 거래가 탄생한 계기를 이루었음