Search

The Chevron doctrine of deference to agency interpretations of statutes should include cases in which the scope of the agency's jurisdiction is an issue. This interpretation is consistent with the rationale behind the Chevron decision and conforms to Supreme Court jurisprudence. It also recognizes the difficulty of differentiating jurisdictional from nonjurisdictional interpretations when the statutory grant of authority is ambiguous.

Guidelines concerning jurisdiction over a parent corporation by its subsidiary's state of incorporation are based on US Supreme Court decisions in Cannon Manufacturing Co v. Cudahy Packing Co and International Shoe Co v. Washington, which established the minimum contacts test. The Delaware Supreme Court has taken a broader view of jurisdiction over parent corporations, but its decisions in Sternberg v. O'Neil and Papendick v. Bosch fall outside the US Supreme Court's guidelines and should be rejected.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit's decision in Boarhead Corporation v. Erickson, holding that Congress intended CERCLA to foreclose property owners' challenges of EPA cleanup plans even where those challenges were based on other federal statutes, was correct. In denying a property owner's claim that the Federal Historic Preservation Act, and not the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act or CERCLA, controlled the way in which a protected site would be detoxified, the court appropriately reasoned that Congress intended to prioritize hazardous cleanup over historic preservation.