Second Circuit Review

Recent Decision Clarifies the 'Chevron' Doctrine

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

In their Second Circuit Review, Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp write: In spite of its reputation as a natural and architectural wonder, the system that provides New York City's tap water has been the subject of a series of lawsuits over the past two decades brought by environmental organizations that fear pollution in New York's waters. A recent decision likely puts to rest this protracted legal battle, as well as clarifies the circuit's jurisprudence on 'Chevron' deference.

This premium content is reserved for New York Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • DF

    This article is near useless. ʺCatskill IIʺ was decided in 2006 ... 451 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2006). The recent decision is "Catskill III." The authors fail to note that Judge Chin in fact dissented (and was fairly persuasive), nor that the dissent did not even mention this supposed "State Farm" distinction whatsoever. This aberrant (2-1) decision does less to send a "clear signal," and more to muddy the waters surrounding Chevron analysis (pun intended).

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202779585926

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.