Chevron overturned

[mountaineer]

I could be wrong, but I think that "snippet" was the entire comment. 

[Bigun]

I could be wrong, but I think that "snippet" was the entire comment. 

  And I now see that he is talking about the media but because he failed to include the word media after the word overarching, I missed it the first several times I read it. My bad. @mountaineer

[Lando Lincoln]

Link below:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.


https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

[DCPatriot]

@Lando Lincoln

Thanks for that!   

[Kamaji]

Link below:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.


https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I would not put nearly so much stock by the overturning of Chevron as this author does.  In the vast majority of cases, the standard boilerplate opinion will go from being "The court will defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency" to "The court, having a view to the statute, believes that the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that [opinion mimics agency interpretation of the statute]."

In other words, it will mostly end up in a typographical change to the standard opinion template most courts use when opining on a case in which agency action is being questioned.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I would not put nearly so much stock by the overturning of Chevron as this author does.  In the vast majority of cases, the standard boilerplate opinion will go from being "The court will defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency" to "The court, having a view to the statute, believes that the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that [opinion mimics agency interpretation of the statute]."

In other words, it will mostly end up in a typographical change to the standard opinion template most courts use when opining on a case in which agency action is being questioned.

Depends on the court I guess?

[catfish1957]

Depends on the court I guess?

In environmental cases, it can boil down to dealing with 4 different agencies.  When I was at a plant in Houston, I was subject to specific rules and regulations, with (1) EPA, (2) State, (TCEQ, and earlier TACB, TWC/TDWR) (3) Harris County Pollution Control (4) City of Houston. 

Each had boilerplate rules (EPA), plus regs specific others, to each local agency. Those enforcement arms then each had their own analagous judical enforcement.   And of course, there were indiviual requirements, regulatory and permitting  that may or may not consistent within the agencies.

4 regulatory agencies for the exact same thing?  A tad reduncant, you might think?   And just another reason why the Chevron case ensued

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In environmental cases, it can boil down to dealing with 4 different agencies.  When I was at a plant in Houston, I was subject to specific rules and regulations, with (1) EPA, (2) State, (TCEQ, and earlier TACB, TWC/TDWR) (3) Harris County Pollution Control (4) City of Houston. 

Each had boilerplate rules (EPA), plus regs specific others, to each local agency. Those enforcement arms then each had their own analagous judical enforcement.   And of course, there were indiviual requirements, regulatory and permitting  that may or may not consistent within the agencies.

4 regulatory agencies for the exact same thing?  A tad reduncant, you might think?   And just another reason why the Chevron case ensued

I was trying to interpret what Kamaji was saying... my interpretation is that the judges will just repeat what the regulators are saying, rather than simply deferring to them? Not sure.

[catfish1957]

I was trying to interpret what Kamaji was saying... my interpretation is that the judges will just repeat what the regulators are saying, rather than simply deferring to them? Not sure.

The Chevron case has so many tenacles.  Kamaji is right in how this plays out in the front end.  And that end, is the ability of pencil necked reg wonks forming vague or unclear requirements that become enforcement cases, and are decided on the whim of the enforcement coordinators. 

Judges rarely get into individual enforcement cases, as some of these violations are techincal enought the "robed guys and gals" don't understand.   Want to see a lawyer's eye's glaze over?  Talk industrial enviromental shop with them for an hour.    In fact in 30 years, I can't remember one lawyer overruling my suggestions or plans, on responding to an enforcement case or a contested permit matter.

[andy58-in-nh]

Been waiting for this for a long long time. The Rats always use bogus methods to subvert and circumvent the Constitution, then build an apparatus on that to enforce their dreams of dictatorship by strangling us with bogus govt.

Chevron was one of the worst, and a weak point in their construct. Reversing it brings the whole thing down. I look forward to seeing all the agency jackboot enforcement of imaginary interpretations of the law being brought to an end, and watching them scramble to somehow regain control.

@Free Vulcan

I agree that this was an important decision in helping to reverse the curse of the Administrative State.

But it is only a beginning.

What is truly required is the systematic elimination of the bureaucracies themselves, and for that effort to ultimately see success, the Supreme Court will need to overturn the mother of all New Deal precedents: Wickard v. Filburn.

[Bigun]

@Free Vulcan

I agree that this was an important decision in helping to reverse the curse of the Administrative State.

But it is only a beginning.

What is truly required is the systematic elimination of the bureaucracies themselves, and for that effort to ultimately see success, the Supreme Court will need to overturn the mother of all New Deal precedents: Wickard v. Filburn.

 

[Smokin Joe]

@Free Vulcan

I agree that this was an important decision in helping to reverse the curse of the Administrative State.

But it is only a beginning.

What is truly required is the systematic elimination of the bureaucracies themselves, and for that effort to ultimately see success, the Supreme Court will need to overturn the mother of all New Deal precedents: Wickard v. Filburn.

Yes.

[Kamaji]

Depends on the court I guess?

Yes, it does; however, for the most part, most courts have a heavy docket, and need to get cases out, so anything that, from the perspective of the judge, is a time-saver, will be considered.  If the judge considers the situation to be particularly pernicious or abusive, or arbitrary, he or she may be more emboldened to take a fresh look at things; but for the majority of judges, if it's not gross overreaching by the agency, the judge is likely to simply go through a pro-forma recitation of the agency's own reasoning as being that of the court, with the end-result being effectively the same as deferring to the agency.

[Kamaji]

I was trying to interpret what Kamaji was saying... my interpretation is that the judges will just repeat what the regulators are saying, rather than simply deferring to them? Not sure.

Yes, and by simply repeating what the agencies have said, the courts will in effect still be deferring to them; it'll just go under a different rubric, and will have different introductory "magic words" the courts will uniformly use.

Instead of saying something like "the court is obliged to defer to the reasoning of the agency.  See Chevron," a lazy or time-pressed court will say something like "the court has concluded that (a), (b), and (c), therefore (d).  See Loper Bright Ent. (overruling Chevron)."  And, "magically", (a), (b), and (c), therefore (d) will be more or less the same as the agency's own argument.  Courts that are a little gun-shy about being reversed will have one or more of their clerks paraphrase the agency's wording so that it isn't verbatim, but as a practical matter, the agency will be deferred to.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Free Vulcan
What is truly required is the systematic elimination of the bureaucracies themselves, and for that effort to ultimately see success, the Supreme Court will need to overturn the mother of all New Deal precedents: Wickard v. Filburn.

What is really needed to much more rigorous screening of federal employees to ensure we get only patriotic staff and leadership in this agencies that shows commitment to support the constitution and not themselves.

[libertybele]

I didn't realize that Cruz prepared the amicus brief -- good on him.

https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1808236705679376868