Quote:

---

The Supreme Court on Monday took up a case that could strike a blow to federal agencies' power, giving the high court an opportunity to overrule decades-old precedent that has permitted courts to defer to executive branch bureaus on certain matters.

The high court announced in its Monday orders it would review the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which was filed by anglers who complain that the National Marine Fisheries Service has run amok with a plan to charge fishing vessels as much as $700 a day to hire a monitor to police their catch.

The anglers lost in a 2-1 federal appeals court ruling in which the majority cited Chevron in deferring to the agency's judgment.

"Judges are supposed to be a check on executive-branch abuses, but Chevron deference turns that upside down and transforms judges into rubber stamps for the whims of the federal bureaucracy," Stefan Axelsson, captain of a fishing vessel in New Jersey, wrote in the National Review last month.

The Fisheries Service is delaying the program until next year. The anglers asked the high court to hear their case and get a final ruling on what the law allows.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in the court's decision to hear the matter.

---

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/1/supreme-court-takes-case-review-agency-deference-p/


Chevron needs to burn in the same fire as Roe v. Wade.

Roberts will of course side with the administrative state as much as possible (saw that last year with the EPA case) so it will be up to the other 5 conservatives to kill Chevron.

Hope this gets overturned.

KBJ studying for next time someone asks a difficult question?

The idea behind the Chevron rule is logical, but in practice it has been a disaster.

Chevron is on of the biggest court mistakes in history, alongside Kelo v New London

the moment gorsuch has been waiting for

Could someone help out us morons on what the Chevron was and did?

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

CDUB98 said:

---

Could someone help out us morons on what the Chevron was and did?

---

Basically, it's a court opinion that lower courts should defer to a federal agency when they make a rule. So if say the EPA proposes a rule and someone challenges it in court, the lower court should defer to the EPA because basically congress gave them consent to do so by statute. It's a bit more nuanced than that but that's the gist of it. It's basically allowed federal agencies to write law without going through congress.

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Could someone help out us morons on what the Chevron was and did?

---

Basically, it's a court opinion that lower courts should defer to a federal agency when they make a rule. So if say the EPA proposes a rule and someone challenges it in court, the lower court should defer to the EPA because basically congress gave them consent to do so by statute. It's a bit more nuanced than that but that's the gist of it. It's basically allowed federal agencies to write law without going through congress.

---

Eh. The nuance is important and I think you're overselling what Chevron stands for. Chevron says that if a statute is ambiguous or unclear about something, the implementing agency's interpretation of that ambiguous provision gets deference as long as it is a reasonable interpretation.

Please tell me this could kick the ATF in the nuts if it is ruled correctly?

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

All evidence to the contrary. They can and have been doing just that.

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

The need to interpret statutes will always exist. Congress shouldn't abrogate constitutional responsibility but the executive branch will always be required to interpret statutes and implement them according to what they believe they mean.

This is really a question of how much strength you want to give the judiciary rather than how you divvy "power" up between Congress and the Executive.

This isn't going to solve how clearly Congress does or does not write statutes.

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

Congress should not write vague legislation. If they do, the problem is on them, and not up to the courts to fix their mistakes and end up legislating from the bench, imposing their own beliefs. At least when the executive branch does it, they are elected, unlike federal judges.

" legislating from the bench"

And the federal agency rule writers are most definitely not elected.

Teslag said:

---

" legislating from the bench"

And the federal agency rule writers are most definitely not elected.

---

They all take orders from the President of the United States. Prior administrative changes saw significant changes on how these agencies choose to regulate.

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

" legislating from the bench"

And the federal agency rule writers are most definitely not elected.

---

They all take orders from the President of the United States. Prior administrative changes saw significant changes on how these agencies choose to regulate.

---

And as Trump, found many of these rules are hard to overturn once established. Not to mention the rank and file federal agency workers continue to behave how they wish. The beauracracy takes on a life of its own, outside the will of the people, and Chevron as contributed to this.

How about we just declare all regulation unconstitutional and force agencies to push desired rules through the congress like any other law?

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

" legislating from the bench"

And the federal agency rule writers are most definitely not elected.

---

They all take orders from the President of the United States.

---

Lol.

If I remember right from (gulp....) twelve years ago, Chevron works like this. Congress passes a law and federal agencies start rulemaking process to implement the law. If their policies get challenged, the standard to which the agency will be held is "arbitary and capricious" implementation of congress' intent.

So if the agency is anything other than arbitrary in their rulemaking, courts can't touch it. Fortunately, most mid level bureaucrats aren't elected, nor do they change jobs when political landscape changes, so that means you get a bunch of unelected bureaucrats basically setting the law with effectively zero accountability to anyone.

Good ruling. Hope it burns. That one plus the 30s/40s era commerce clause cases are just the worst.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Could someone help out us morons on what the Chevron was and did?

---

Basically, it's a court opinion that lower courts should defer to a federal agency when they make a rule. So if say the EPA proposes a rule and someone challenges it in court, the lower court should defer to the EPA because basically congress gave them consent to do so by statute. It's a bit more nuanced than that but that's the gist of it. It's basically allowed federal agencies to write law without going through congress.

---

Eh. The nuance is important and I think you're overselling what Chevron stands for. Chevron says that if a statute is ambiguous or unclear about something, the implementing agency's interpretation of that ambiguous provision gets deference as long as it is a reasonable interpretation.

---

Nah not reasonable. Just not entirely arbitrary. And as so much bull**** legislation that gets passed is watered down to the point of being incredibly ambiguous so as to be more politically palatable, the net effect is that congress has basically passed lawmaking to agencies. Who have zero accountability. There's a reason Chevron is like the most cited case in federal courts by a factor of like 20 or something (and before you fact check me here, I don't remember the degree to which it's the most cited case, just that it is).

...Here is the question: “whether the Court should overrule Chevron 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.”

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 1, 2023

AND KBJ is recused.

https://t.co/iOEqLIyMsd

— Melanie🇺🇲 (@mefbama) May 1, 2023

NoHo Hank said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Could someone help out us morons on what the Chevron was and did?

---

Basically, it's a court opinion that lower courts should defer to a federal agency when they make a rule. So if say the EPA proposes a rule and someone challenges it in court, the lower court should defer to the EPA because basically congress gave them consent to do so by statute. It's a bit more nuanced than that but that's the gist of it. It's basically allowed federal agencies to write law without going through congress.

---

Eh. The nuance is important and I think you're overselling what Chevron stands for. Chevron says that if a statute is ambiguous or unclear about something, the implementing agency's interpretation of that ambiguous provision gets deference as long as it is a reasonable interpretation.

---

Nah not reasonable. Just not entirely arbitrary. And as so much bull**** legislation that gets passed is watered down to the point of being incredibly ambiguous so as to be more politically palatable, the net effect is that congress has basically passed lawmaking to agencies. Who have zero accountability. There's a reason Chevron is like the most cited case in federal courts by a factor of like 20 or something (and before you fact check me here, I don't remember the degree to which it's the most cited case, just that it is).

---

The holding in Chevron was: "The EPA's interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference." Different cases have thrown out different language, but at its heart, its looking for something reasonable or "permissible."

Chevron is not even the most cited SCOTUS administrative law case, but that's really neither here nor there. It certainly is an important case, totally agree with your point.

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

Congress should not write vague legislation. If they do, the problem is on them, and not up to the courts to fix their mistakes and end up legislating from the bench, imposing their own beliefs. At least when the executive branch does it, they are elected, unlike federal judges.

---

Name a single member of any bureaucratic agency of the executive branch that is elected.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

How about we just declare all regulation unconstitutional and force agencies to push desired rules through the congress like any other law?

---

This is the way

I think the most likely outcome isn't overruling Chevron, but rather a more narrow ruling.

If the "liberal" side ends up writing an opinion(s), it will be interesting to see if they decide to quote Antonin Scalia a few times just to rile folks up. Scalia was always a defender of Chevron.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I think the most likely outcome isn't overruling Chevron, but rather a more narrow ruling.

If the "liberal" side ends up writing an opinion(s), it will be interesting to see if they decide to quote Antonin Scalia a few times just to rile folks up. Scalia was always a defender of Chevron.

---

KBJ is recused. Even if Roberts joins their side, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB can prevail.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I think the most likely outcome isn't overruling Chevron, but rather a more narrow ruling.

If the "liberal" side ends up writing an opinion(s), it will be interesting to see if they decide to quote Antonin Scalia a few times just to rile folks up. Scalia was always a defender of Chevron.

---

KBJ is recused. Even if Roberts joins their side, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB can prevail.

---

That is correct. And if some past opinions from Alito, in particular, are meaningful, I think we very well might see a more narrow ruling. And of course, Gorsuch has tip-toed on the issue and Kavanaugh has said "Chevron makes a lot of sense in certain circumstances."

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

My Administrative Law professor expressly said otherwise. Much to my chagrin.

Sarge 91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

My Administrative Law professor expressly said otherwise. Much to my chagrin.

---

Because of Chevron he is technically correct. For now.

Quote:

---

The purposes of the act were: (1) to ensure that agencies keep the public informed of their organization, procedures, and rules, (2) to provide for public participation in the rule-making process, (3) to prescribe uniform standards for the conduct of formal rule making and adjudicatory proceedings, and (4) to restate the law of judicial review.

---

LINK

Have never liked number 4.

Teslag said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

My Administrative Law professor expressly said otherwise. Much to my chagrin.

---

Because of Chevron he is technically correct. For now.

---

That's really a different issue. The Chevron Doctrine does not define how vague or not vague Congress must be in its laws, nor does it define when Congress is or is not "abrogating" Constitutional duties.

If Chevron and its progeny are overruled, another confusing and complicated doctrine of interpretation will be used in its place. The result won't be to force Congress to write laws in a different manner. It will just change the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

Teslag said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

My Administrative Law professor expressly said otherwise. Much to my chagrin.

---

Because of Chevron he is technically correct. For now.

---

No, he is incorrect, as were the judges who signed off on Chevron.

• John Paul Stevens (Author)
• Warren Earl Burger
• Byron Raymond White
• William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
• Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
• Harry Andrew Blackmun

Justices Marshall, Rehnquist, and O'Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Quote:

---

If Chevron and its progeny are overruled, another confusing and complicated doctrine of interpretation will be used in its place. The result won't be to force Congress to write laws in a different manner. It will just change the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

---

So long as the 'new' doctrine reduces the ability of the executive agencies to flip flop every 4 years, great! Those trying to obey the 'rules' have to guess how those rules will change with each administration - even though the law being enforced through regulation hasn't changed for more than a hundred years. Chevron deference MUST go and given his prior writings on the subject, I'd be shocked if Gorsuch isn't the drafter of the opinion.

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

If Congress disagrees with the regulatory powers the executive branch derives from legislation Congress itself wrote, Congress is free to change that legislation to make its intent explicitly clear.

---

That's not how it is supposed to work. Congress can't vaguely abrogate their constitutional responsibility.

---

Congress should not write vague legislation. If they do, the problem is on them, and not up to the courts to fix their mistakes and end up legislating from the bench, imposing their own beliefs. At least when the executive branch does it, they are elected, unlike federal judges.

---

Vague law is supposed to favor the individual, NOT the government. Yet, this decision has allowed the executive branch to ridiculously "fill in" its version of the intent of basic legal frameworks to such a substantial extent that its regulations run far afield of the original intent and constraints, and they collude with advocacy groups to engage in undefended legal capitulations that let the courts rewrite regulations even further at the behest of these advocacy groups.

Vagueness in the law is the responsibility of congress at a point, and should favor the public, who are primarily the accused violator.