Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Ferroalloys Association, Intervenors

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that review under the CAA’s ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ standard is the same as that 12 required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
• discussing the statutory construction principle that the “mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing.”
• explaining the Clean Air Act’s standard of review “is essentially the same” as that of the Administrative Procedure Act
• holding, under another provision of the CAA, that “[tjhere is no doubt that [EPA] has the authority to make the factual determination of whether an applicant has submitted enough data ... to satisfy the applicable standards, and a reviewing court must respect this role”
• rejecting argument that “Congress’s use of the word ‘may’ ” gives agency unbridled discretion and noting that “[w]e refuse . . . to presume a delegation of power merely because Congress has not expressly withheld such power”
• “We refuse, once again, to presume a delegation of power merely because Congress has not expressly withheld such power.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).