...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Pennsylvania journal of environmental litigation >IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
【24h】

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

机译：在宾夕法尼亚州东部地区的美国地区法院

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The crux of the main interpretive issue in this case centers on attempting to give meaning to a less-than-clear phrase in a "less-than-clear statute." American Farm Bureau Fed'n v. EPA, 792 F.3d 281, 309 (3d Cir. 2015) (characterizing the CWA in this manner). The bottom line in administrative law cases, at least for now, is that the exercise of resolving interpretive ambiguities in less-than-clear legal texts, whether the text is a statute or a regulation, is reserved to the administering agency to the extent that it acts reasonably. Although this case can be viewed under multiple lenses, the important point is not to get too bogged down in determining whether ambiguity rests solely within the CWA or within the implementing regulations as well. The important point is that Congress created an ambiguity in the first place. For in this area of law, it is this type of ambiguity that allows an agency to bring its expertise to bear on a precise issue. See id. at 298 (noting that textual ambiguity in a statute is a signal that "Congress wanted an expert to give meaning to the words it chose"). The court's role in this order is both to ensure that the agency does not stray beyond the scope of the delegated power allowing it to exercise its expertise and to ensure that the agency does not stray beyond norms of consistency and reason when it actually acts on that expertise.
机译：在这种情况下，主要解释性问题的症结在于试图在“不那么清楚的法规”中给不那么清楚的短语赋予含义。美国农场局Fed'n诉EPA，792 F.3d 281，309（3d Cir。2015）（以这种方式表征CWA）。至少到目前为止，行政法案件的底线是，解决不清晰法律文本（无论是法规还是法规）中的解释性歧义的做法，应保留给管理机构，以确保它的行为合理。尽管可以从多个角度审视这种情况，但重要的是不要在确定歧义是否仅存在于CWA或实施法规之内时就陷入困境。重要的是，国会首先制造了歧义。因为在这一法律领域，正是这种含糊不清使代理机构能够将其专业知识运用到一个精确的问题上。请参阅编号。 （第298页）（注意到法规中的文本含糊不清是“国会希望专家为其选择的词语赋予含义的信号”）。法院在此命令中的作用不仅是确保代理机构不偏离授权权力范围，使它无法行使自己的专业知识，还应确保代理机构在实际对其采取行动时不会偏离一致性和理由规范。专业知识。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号