VOSS Posted June 28 Posted June 28 The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the authority of executive agencies, sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress. The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts. The decision threatens regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along ideological lines. The conservative legal movement and business groups have long objected to the Chevron ruling, partly based on a general hostility to government regulation and partly based on the belief, grounded in the separation of powers, that agencies should have only the power that Congress has explicitly given them. NYTimes
karron0624 Posted June 28 Posted June 28 We all saw it coming, but this is still a game changer. Its also funny that they had this opinion in the wings, but deferred to an agencies wrong opinion in an immigration case basically relying on the chevron without actually quoting it. The backflips this court is doing. 3
Reginald Posted June 28 Posted June 28 This court is shamelessly determined to rule over every aspect of our lives. These recent past years have been like watching the fabric of our society unravel, piece by piece. I am so tired. 2
montacelo Posted June 28 Posted June 28 I don't really understand the implications can someone explain more
karron0624 Posted June 28 Posted June 28 8 minutes ago, montacelo said: I don't really understand the implications can someone explain more I'll try to break it down simply, but will also give you some context/history, but you will need it all to actually understand the opinion. American government is divided into three branches of government: legislative creates the laws, executive enforces the laws, and judicial interprets the laws. Well the three branches don't always work hand in hand because the implications of each take a long time. So the legislative branch has created these organizations called agencies to essentially do all three organizations in one. Let's take the EPA. Congress created the EPA to write environmental rules on the general law they create, because god forbid congress be specific on anything. So now the process is: Step 1: Congress creates general law. Step 2: EPA creates a rule interpreting the law (legislative function) Step 3: EPA goes after people who violate the law (executive function) Step 4: EPA makes a decision on if a person violated the law (judicial function). Mind you this is all being done under the executive branches juridiction because all agencies fall under the executive branch. So there has always been an argument whether agencies are constitutional but that is a whole nother argument because this SC did not determine that. What they made a determination on was Chevron. Chevron states simplistically that courts will defer to an agency when the agency makes a determination on something within its scope. This requires two (actually three steps): Step 0: who did congress want to make the decision i.e did congress give the power to the agency to make the decision. Step 1: Is the intent of the statute ambiguous. step 2: is the agencies interpretation of the statute reasonable. This all goes to an agency's (1) power to make rules (legislative power); and (2) power to interpret the determinations on a ruling (judicial power). Based on Chevron deference, a court should always defer to an agency's decision if all three steps are met. However, with Chevron gone, everyone can appeal any agency decision into a circuit court that would agree with them to overturn the agency. This basically means that agencies will no longer be able to make new rules or interpret laws because everything will always be challenged. Quite frankly, it would be better to have just ruled agency actions unconstitutional, and stopped there. It would have been a bad decision, but a respectable one at least. The fact they avoided that easy response and went straight to "kill chevron, we are no longer defering to experts in their field" is just political at this juncture. It basically is saying "you can still make rules and you can still make determinations, but we will allow all challenges to be made by anyone with a de novo appeal to an unsophisticated court. 3 1
karron0624 Posted June 28 Posted June 28 TLDR of what i just posted: Agencies had their power gutted, and any rule/decision they make can be overturned if appealed to the right jurisdiction. 1
VOSS Posted June 28 Author Posted June 28 26 minutes ago, montacelo said: I don't really understand the implications can someone explain more Under "Chevron", courts have been expected to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a law administered by that agency when the text of the law was ambiguous. Overturning it gives more power to the judiciary (judges) in a way as they can interpret laws independently when a legal challenge is brought instead of relying on an agency's expertise. So for example, the EPA could face more judicial scrutiny on their interpretation of environmental laws, or the department of health and human services could be challenged on their interpretation of the affordable care act. We'll really have to wait and see how it shakes out, which will take years/decades 2
chessguy99 Posted June 28 Posted June 28 1 hour ago, VOSS said: Under "Chevron", courts have been expected to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a law administered by that agency when the text of the law was ambiguous. Overturning it gives more power to the judiciary (judges) in a way as they can interpret laws independently when a legal challenge is brought instead of relying on an agency's expertise. So for example, the EPA could face more judicial scrutiny on their interpretation of environmental laws, or the department of health and human services could be challenged on their interpretation of the affordable care act. We'll really have to wait and see how it shakes out, which will take years/decades Another thing this does is forces Congress to write better laws. A downside of the Chevron decision was it created a system where regulation changed with administrations. It would actually be better, as it will codify the how laws are administered and you won't have the back and forth changes we've experienced these past seven years with Trump changing what Obama had in place and then Biden flipping it again.
Princess Aurora Posted June 28 Posted June 28 Maybe The Handmaid's Tale was a cautionary tale rather than fiction.....
Recommended Posts