-137-
United States, Inc. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 41-45 (1983); and
another standard in reviewing administrative adjudications--are
they “unsupported by substantial evidence?,” 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(E)
(which has been interpreted as going to “the reasonableness of
what the agency did,” United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373
U.S. 709, 715 (1963) (emphasis added)).
Mead makes this clearer--it says that the Court has
“recognized a very good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron
treatment in express congressional authorizations to engage in
the process of rulemaking or adjudication that produces
regulations.” 533 U.S. at 229 (2001). It then lists, among
other cases to prove that point, Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co v.
Commissioner, 523 U.S. 382 (1998), a case in which we were
reversed after invalidating a regulation issued under section
7805(a).16
16 Mead, 533 U.S. at 230 n.12. Many, perhaps most, of the
cases cited in that footnote involve general authority
regulations. E.g. Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care,
Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000)[issued under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1395cc(b)(2)
(“Secretary may [act] * * * as may be specified in
regulations”)]; United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380
(1999)[issued under 19 U.S.C. sec. 1502(a) (Secretary may
“establish and promulgate such rules and regulations not
inconsistent with the law”)]; AT&T Corp. v. Ia. Util. Bd., 525
U.S. 366 (1999)[issued under 47 U.S.C. sec. 201(b) (“Commissioner
may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary”)];
United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997)[issued under 15
U.S.C. sec. 78j(b) (authorizing “rules and regulations as the
[SEC] Commissioner may prescribe as necessary or appropriate”)];
Am. Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991)[issued under 29
(continued...)
Page: Previous 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011