Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Funk on *Eurodif* & *Chevron*:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233170920
Among the decisions handed down on Monday was [1]United States v.
Eurodif, in which the Supreme Court held unanimously that certain
contracts for enriched uranium are sales of goods subject to federal
anti-dumping laws. The case may seem obscure, it is potentially
important for administrative law, as Lewis & Clark's [2]William Funk
explained in a recent e-mail to the AdminLawProf e-mail list-serv. I
thought this might be of interest to any admin-law junkies out there,
so I reproduce it below (with Bill's permission):
Monday the Supreme Court decided US v. Eurodif (2009 WL 160582), in
which the Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in an anti
dumping case. The case turned on whether the court should give
Chevron deference to a determination made by Commerce in an
adjudication. Justice Souter, who with Justice Breyer, has done
more to screw up Chevron law than anyone else, spent some time
explaining why the statute in question was ambiguous and why
Commerce�s interpretation in its antidumping decision was
reasonable. Unfortunately, he nowhere identified what sort of
adjudication it was � formal or informal. He suggested it was
formal by dropping a footnote saying �The specific factual findings
on which an agency relies in applying its interpretation are
conclusive unless unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. §
706(2)(E),� which by its terms is limited to reviews of formal
adjudications. However, the factual findings in an antidumping case
are not subject to 706(2)(E), they are subject to the specific
requirements of the judicial review provisions of the antidumping
act, 19 U.S.C.A. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i), applicable to
�determinations on record.� My quick search has not been able to
disclose the procedural requirements attendant to these antidumping
determinations. If it is formal adjudication, then Eurodif breaks
no new ground. On the other hand, if the adjudication is not formal
adjudication, then the decision breaks new ground at least in the
sense that it assumes an �adjudication� by itself is entitled to
Chevron deference.
SCOTUSBlog has more on the Eurodif decision [3]here.
References
1. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1059.pdf
2. http://www.lclark.edu/dept/lawadmss/funk.html
3. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/opinion-recap-us-v-eurodif/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
