|
|
|
|
|
|
by pclmulqdq
718 days ago
|
|
|
It pretty much was "without check" unless the action was facially against the text of the governing statute for the agency. Your example about pollution in the air and in the water is actually close to a good one: The EPA decided recently that they had power over CO2 emissions because of some very mild toxicity, even though that's not the reason why anyone wants to control CO2 emissions. They could easily have argued in your scenario that toxin dumped in the water evaporates and ends up in the air, so it's in their purview, and it might not be wrong under Chevron. |
|
|