Home
Professional Profile
Reported Banking
Cases
Published Banking
Articles
Associated Resources
Vindication Of A Banker
Federal Abuse Of Power
Federal
Banking Agencies
State
Banking Authorities
National Associations
State Associations
Banking Case
Notes
United States Code
Code of Federal Regulations
Federal Banking Statutes
Federal Banking Regulations
Administrative Procedure Act
Equal Access to Justice Act
Federal Agency Procedures
Federal Agency Decisions
Federal Appellate Decisions
Federal Appellate
Judiciary
Federal
Rules of Evidence
Federal
Rules of Civ. Pro.
Federal Rules of App.
Pro.
Federal
Public Laws
Federal
Register
On-Line
Research Services
Law Dictionary
Miscellaneous
Special Disclaimer
Terms And Conditions
Privacy Statement
The concurring opinion by Judge Rogers in Rapaport
v. OTS, 59 F.3d 212, 220 (D.C. Cir. 1995) contains
an excellent discussion of applicability of seminal opinion of the
US Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)
regarding agency deference to situations where more than one agency
is charged with interpreting a given statute. Judge Rogers concludes
that the references in the majority opinion of Rapaport (as
well as in the opinion of Wachtel v. OTS, 982 F.2d 581, 585
(D.C. Cir. 1993) which indicate that the Chevron doctrine of
agency deference is inapplicable to situations where multiple agencies
are involved are nothing more than dictum. He makes a compelling case.
The decisions in Wachtel and Rapaport were
not dependent upon the inapplicability of Chevron deference; the decisions
in both cases would have been the same even if Chevron deference had
been applied. Id. at 220. Further, the cases cited in Wachtel [all dealing
with FOIA and APA which are interpreted by all agencies] are easily distinguishable
from banking agency cases [dealing with FDIA and companion statutes interpreted
by only banking agencies].
Circuits THAT recognize Chevron deference
in banking cases
Simpson v. OTS, 29 F.3d 1418, 1425 (9th Cir. 1994)
Aiken v. OTS, 950 F.2d 1180, 1184 (5th Cir. 1992)
Circuits THAT
DO NOT RECOGNIZE Chevron deference in banking cases
Wachtel v. OTS, 982 F.2d 581, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Rapaport
v. OTS, 59 F.3d 212, 216 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Circuits THAT
strike a middle ground for Chevron deference in banking cases
1185 Ave. Of Americas Assocs. v. RTC, 22 F.3d 494, 497 (2nd Cir. 1994)
End of article | Back to top
Copyright © 2003 The Banking Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Last revised: June 1, 2012.