STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE CHEVRON TEST IN CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON: A PROBLEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

摘要

The fight over subsidence and section 522(e) may not be over. A petition for Supreme Court review is currently pending. If the Court grants certiorari, its decision cannot be predicted with certainty. To reverse the Court of Appeals, the Court would either have to: 1) find clear meaning in the statute contrary to the Secretary's interpretation, or 2) find the statute to be ambiguous and the Secretary's interpretation to be an impermissible reading of the statute. Given the evidence offered in support of the reasonableness of that interpretation, it seems unlikely that the Court would reverse under step two of Chevron. The possibility remains that the Court could find an unambiguous Congressional intent to prohibit subsidence in section 522 areas, but in so doing, the Court would most likely have to apply a broad notion of tools of construction. Given the Court's apparent unwillingness to add to or adjust the text itself (especially punctuation), it appears unlikely that the District Court's comma-driven reading would be accepted.