PODCAST: The Future of Chevron Deference — C&M's Trump: The First Year Series
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.22.17
In the latest podcast for Crowell & Moring’s “Trump: The First Year” series, David Chung, partner in the firm’s Environment & Natural Resources Group, and Carlton Greene, partner in the International Trade Group, sit down to discuss the future of Chevron deference and how that doctrine relates to the Trump administration's goal of deconstructing the administrative state. Prior to joining the firm in 2015, Carlton served as chief counsel of FinCEN and also worked for OFAC at the Dept. of the Treasury. David’s practice focuses on litigation and regulatory counseling involving natural resources development and environmental issues.
Covered in this 22-minute podcast:
- An overview of Chevron deference and recent developments.
- How much flexibility and power agencies have when invoking Chevron deference.
- The future of Chevron deference.
- Possible implications of eliminating Chevron deference.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
