Supreme Court Overrules Chevron

[bushmaster1313]

In what may one of the most important decisions restricting the power of Regulatory State, this morning the Supreme Court overruled the "Chevron" Doctrine.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

In simple terms, the "Chevron" Doctrine originated in a decades old Supreme Court case which held that if Congress passes an ambiguous law, in interpreting the law courts MUST defer to the interpretation of the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing that law.

In colloquial terms, today's Supreme Court says: Nice try, but a no-no under the Constitution.

Major smackdown for the Regulatory State

 

[ladder13]

Dominoes are falling.

 

[GaryS]

They seem to have been signaling this through this term. Cargill v. Garland was an indication that they were not in favor of federal agencies making law via regulation. SEC v. Jarkesy limited the ability of the SEC to use an administrative law judge to fine someone and seize money.

This is a logical extension of those decisions.

 

[Marshwheeling]

Another predictable win by a corrupt and disrespected Court.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

It's about time the Supreme Court got back to actually following the Constitution rather than finding new powers never given the government.

I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS (I'm not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)...but for all the handwringing and cries of the Court going "rogue" or "illegitimate" the fact is the Court is working as designed by the Framers. Just because one side doesn't like losing by the rules doesn't give them the right to change the rules to get the decision they prefer.

 

[s&wchad]

In what may one of the most important decisions restricting the power of Regulatory State, this morning the Supreme Court overruled the "Chevron" Doctrine.

I'm glad to hear it!
The legislative branch (Congress) is charged with creating laws. Senators and Representatives are elected and held accountable by their constituents. Appointed bureaucrats are not accountable to the people and have no right to make laws under our Constitution.

 

[UncleEd]

As I understand the ruling, Congress must be more specific in its passage of statutes.

It can no longer OK a law saying, "Regulate widgets." It must specify in more detail just what the Widget Control Agency can or cannot do to achieve regulation.

The future of regulations will probably mean even more involvement than already exists with lobbyists and agency chiefs tussling with lawmakers on what to include in a proposed bill.

And few congressional lawmakers have the expertise to really know what details are needed or not needed.

 

[ladder13]

It's about time the Supreme Court got back to actually following the Constitution rather than finding new powers never given the government.

I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS (I'm not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)...but for all the handwringing and cries of the Court going "rogue" or "illegitimate" the fact is the Court is working as designed by the Framers. Just because one side doesn't like losing by the rules doesn't give them the right to change the rules to get the decision they prefer.

Perfectly stated.

 

[LVSteve]

As I understand the ruling, Congress must be more specific in its passage of statutes.

It can no longer OK a law saying, "Regulate widgets." It must specify in more detail just what the Widget Control Agency can or cannot do to achieve regulation.

The future of regulations will probably mean even more involvement than already exists with lobbyists and agency chiefs tussling with lawmakers on what to include in a proposed bill.

And few congressional lawmakers have the expertise to really know what details are needed or not needed.

Compared to the UK parliamentary strait-jacket I was accustomed to, I was extremely baffled by the slack legislating that appeared to be the norm at all levels of government when I came here. Nailing down the edges of legislative bills at the get-go can save a great deal of time, angst, and money by preventing endless lawsuits trying to fix or exploit ambiguities.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Nailing down the edges of legislative bills at the get-go can save a great deal of time, angst, and money by preventing endless lawsuits trying to fix or exploit ambiguities.

While the writing of laws cannot predict every eventuality the future may bring...there has to be a little wiggle room for court interpretations of Congressional intent...but that doesn't mean regulators can make new law just for the ha-has of it to suit themselves and their agendas.

By making Congress do their duty in writing laws and making the intent and specifics of those laws as defined as possible can take a long time...but when no laws are being made the Republic is safe from their mischief.

I would like to see a President...of any party...all Presidents in fact...have the DOJ set up a team of career people...or a set of judges...not political appointees...to review every bill passed by Congress and give a judgement on its Constitutionality before being presented for the President's signature or veto. I realize that's not a perfect solution and possibly not workable...but it might keep some bad laws being signed and out of the court system with lawsuits. Maybe it's arguable both ways but an argument that might need be considered.

 

[MelvinWalker]

This is going to seriously hamper the old term, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land....Kinda cool huh".

This phrase was uttered by Paul Begala when executive orders were flying without consulting Congress.

It's about time Congress has the say more than some alphabet agency.

 

[llowry61]

This is long overdue. The days of ramming through a law with little or no clarity then allowing unelected bureaucrats to interpret it as they see fit to further their agenda without accountability will hopefully come to an end.

 

[soFlaNative]

Does this mean my next refrigerator won't cost 40% more to save me $6-7 a year on my electric bill?

 

[NYlakesider]

Does this mean my next refrigerator won't cost 40% more to save me $6-7 a year on my electric bill?

As long as we are looking for good results I hope they get rid of those stupid gas filling cans. You know the ones that do not let vapor out but spill quarts of gas/diesel/kerosene every time there used!

 

[DWalt]

It's an interesting decision that should have far reaching implications. In summary, the situation that led to this decision involved a commercial fisherman who violated a Federal minimum fish size regulation. The fisherman had been forced to pay for an inspector onboard, $700/day, to measure fish lengths, yet the regulation was silent on who would pay for the presence of the inspector. The agency decided on its own that the commercial fisherman had to bear the expense - yet there was no formal mention of that requirement. And for a long time, the practice had been that the Federal agency had the authority to make its own interpretations if the regulation was unclear. That is, in doubtful situations, without any other authority, the agency is free to interpret the regulation any way it wishes. No longer. I have a lawyer friend who specializes in Federal regulatory law. He believes the court's decision today has been long overdue as he runs into similar situations often. We discussed it at lunch today. This is a brief discussion of the Chevron Deference case: Chevron deference | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[MelvinWalker]

The decision is long and the devil is ALWAYS in the details.

Roberts wrote the decision and specifically said that this ruling did not undue any other rulings that were previously decided with Chevron being the precedent He used the term "Stare Decisis" which is Latin for "Stand by decisions", so this was typical Roberts in that it only applied to new rulings which is silly.

It just opens up mountains of litigation on older rulings one by one, instead of just saying it's either right or wrong.

 

[serger]

scotus overrules Chevron Defense

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO,
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

Now the ATF has something else to think about.(EPA too.)

"Hit My Smoke"

 

[Greyman50]

Perhaps much “ will hit the fan” after this ruling…..

 

[robertrwalsh]

This is actually a big deal, especially if we get somebody in charge who has an issue with over-reach by unelected desk jockeys.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

This is absolutely a big deal. The "Chevron deference" gave Federal government agencies way too much leeway in their rule-making. Think bump stocks and pistol braces just to mention two recent ATF controversies.

But it was everywhere. The Loper Bright Enterprises case involved mandates to commercial fisherman to have inspectors on their boats at al times when at sea. Very nutty. This case will slow down or eliminate willy-nilly, SILLY, requirements that are invented at the whims and political pleasures of various administrations.