Chambers v. Nasa Federal Credit Union

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that an agency’s “reasoning cannot be internally inconsistent” (citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 884 F.3d 1185, 1194–96 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
• emphasizing “FERC’s statutory duty … to provide some reasonable justification for any adverse treatment relative to similarly 17 situated competitors”
• referring to “FERC’s statutory duty—imposed by the APA and owed to all other regulated parties—to provide some reasonable justification for any adverse treatment relative to similarly situated competitors” (emphasis added)
• “ANR and DTE seem indistinguishable as leading competitors with virtually identical shares in the same relevant markets.”
• To survive arbitrary and capricious review, an agency must “justify the disparate treatment of regulated parties that seem similarly situated, and its reasoning cannot be internally inconsistent.” (citations omitted)
• “[N]either of those parties could contract away FERC’s statutory duty—imposed by the APA and owed to all other regulated parties—to provide some reasonable justification for any adverse treatment relative to similarly situated competitors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).