We on the right always complain about power of bureaucrats pushing regulations and laws that are outside of their boundaries.
The Supreme Court will decide a challenge over how courts assess federal rulemaking, setting up a major case for its next term that could change the balance of power between executive agencies, Congress and the judiciary.
The case the court announced Monday, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, centers on a challenge to a Commerce Department rule on fishery inspectors. But the justices said they will reconsider a 39-year-old legal precedent that has been used to uphold thousands of agency rules across the entire federal government.
Federal agencies, from the Justice Department to the EPA and the Federal Communications Commission, regularly assert what’s known as “Chevron deference” in defending their rules in court.
Here is case that set it up. Chevron deference
IMO this is one if not biggest problem we face, government bureaucracy overreach. I will look forward to @Safiel opinion. I don’t always agree with Safiel but he always has his own take…and no this is not a call out…so don’t go there.
Now my opinion reasonable interpretations has been abused by government agency to mean/do what every they want as long as they feel it’s reasonable.
And now we are all witnessing authoritarian state unfold before our eyes.
I will post something more substantial later this evening as I am otherwise occupied right now. But I do welcome this development and look forward to Chevron at least being dialed back, if not eliminated.
This has potential to be a huge ruling…but just how far SCOTUS will go with it I don’t know. Thus the reason why I wanted to hear Safiel take on it. But I do remember 84 decision. And I remember than it raised all kinds of red flags for me.
I’ll discuss it more but have to go out for couple hours.
Issue: Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Amicus brief of the Cato Institute. Cato notes that the Supreme Court has not “deferred” under Chevron in over 6 years, while the Courts of Appeal regularly continue to do so. The Supreme Court clearly needs to step in. Cato also makes good arguments against the concept.
Chevron deference ultimately is as much a court created doctrine as is the doctrine of qualified immunity. Neither have any basis at all in the Constitution or the law.
Courts, historically, have given deference to the executive on most issues. So long as the executive is acting within the law and the law is constitutional, they should, and in most cases, since the founding of the nation, have.
With that said, there is a wide gulf between deference and patronage. I see this as the natural growth of stare decisis. One court makes a decision, then future courts use that decision by excerpting phrases to buttress other decisions and the power of the excerpts grow over time. This is how the commerce clause has been abused more and more over time. Liberty dies one small tyranny at a time.
The question with this case it seems to me, is not whether the executive should be given deference in its interpretation. But whether the interpretation fits within the scope of the law. If not, its an abuse of power by the executive and needs to immediately stop. If the interpretation does fit within the scope of the law, is the law itself overly broad. By overly broad I mean is the law itself constructed in such a way that it would allow the executive to interpret it in a way that would usurp powers reserved to the congress which the congress did not intend the executive to exercise.
Meanwhile the house today vored to overturn a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Republicans say gave the executive branch too much power to impose regulations that cost Americans.
The Supreme Court granted a companion case on Chevron deference and it will be argued alongside the existing case Loper. Justice Jackson was recused in Loper and granting this case will essentially permit her to participate in the outcome of this extremely high stakes battle.
Even better would be if a bunch of agencies just had their doors closed forever.
ATF could 100% go away
FBI gutted
EPA could be gutted to 5% of current and states handle their own affairs
Education gutted
Energy….gone
Defense cut/revamp
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
He did not say:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, except when an executive department has an opinion of what the law is.
Chevron is an affront to the status of the judiciary as enunciated by Chief Justice Marshal in 1803.
