exist Kennedy v. Bremerton School DistrictSupreme Court sweeps fifty lemon test (from Lemons v. Kurtzman) Take the court ‘a long time ago to give up lemon and its endorsement test branch. “While never formally rejected, the court has now acknowledged lemon‘s abstention.This may also be coming Chevron?
Several justices made no secret of their Chevron principles, and the court did not follow the agency’s interpretation of the statute Chevron A few years later, but (with lemon) it did not evaluate the claim based on some other analysis.
like Chevronhe lemon test has not been used by the Supreme Court to adjudicate cases for many years, and has been thoroughly criticized in previous opinions (e.g. American Legion v. American Humanist Association), some lower court judges have taken note.yet different ChevronThis lemon Testing has never really become a fixture in relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.Lower court citation and application lemonbut the Supreme Court has rarely done so, giving it favorable reviews in only a handful of cases since its 1971 ruling.
Chevron, On the other hand, it is one of the most frequently cited and relied upon Supreme Court decisions on any subject.Furthermore, even without relying on the court, it can be said that the court follows ChevronIn particular, it cautions that if regulations answer the question at hand—one that needs to be answered by applying traditional regulatory interpretation tools—regulatory controls and no respect for institutions. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, not just any ambiguity will do. Rather, the ambiguity must relate to the problem entrusted to the agency.
Supreme Court doesn’t seem to give up Chevron, even narrow the scope of the case Chevron Obedience is appropriate.It has been doing this, first of all, by Application ChevronA more rigorous first step, thereby handling more cases in the first step.it also refuses to grant Chevron obedience When the federal government doesn’t ask for itand reiterates Chevron When the question refers to the “main problem” (as in Kim v. Burwell) or other matters beyond the scope of the agency (such as judicial review, such as Smith v. Berry Hill).
Therefore, the court did not “give up” Chevron so much because it keeps propping up Chevrondomain.The message to the lower court is not to challenge whether Chevron should apply, but work to interpret regulations and ensure that agencies do not receive Chevron Respect issues beyond their mandate and expertise.
That doesn’t mean the courts won’t eventually overturn Chevron (although I have doubts), but I think this shows Chevron won’t simply go lemon.