Edison Electric Institute v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• holding challenge to agency’s interpretation of law and regulations advanced in enforcement policy statement was “not the type of discretionary judgment concerning the allocation of enforcement resources that [Chaney] shields from judicial review”
• rejecting anti-duplication provision argument where petitioners were “unable to point to any direct conflict between” RCRA and another act listed in § 6905(a)
• finding reopening where agency’s rationale for not revising regulation was that revision “would result in a rule that would ‘be very difficult to implement and enforce’ ”
• “[S]ubstantive requirements of the law,” are “not the type of discretionary judgment concerning the allocation of enforcement resources that Heckler shields from judicial review”
• elementary canon of construction that court will not read word out of statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).