Courts reviewing agency decisions
Apogee Coal v. Director
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Arch Resources and its former subsidiaries Apogee Coal and Arch of Kentucky have asked the Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit ruling in a Black Lung Benefits Act case about whether a court may uphold an agency’s liability decision using regulations the agency did not cite.
- What's at stake
- The dispute concerns liability for the coal companies under the Black Lung Benefits Act, but the Supreme Court has not agreed to review it.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Their petition says the Fourth and Seventh Circuits reached the opposite conclusion.
The case arises under the federal Black Lung Benefits Act.
Question presented
do Chenery and the party-presentation principle preclude a circuit court from affirming an agency’s assignment of liability based on regulatory provisions that an agency never identified while performing a quasi-judicial function?
What happens next
The Court’s next step is to decide whether to hear the petition. No oral argument or decision date is scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- Why do the companies say the Supreme Court should hear the case?
- They say the Sixth Circuit reached a different conclusion from the Fourth and Seventh Circuits.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.