Posted on 05/01/2023 11:47:46 AM PDT by Red Badger
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a case that could significantly scale back federal agencies’ authority, with major implications for the future of environmental and other regulations.
The justices next term will consider whether to overturn a decades-old precedent that grants agencies deference when Congress left ambiguity in a statute.
Named for the court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron deference has become one of the most frequently cited precedents in administrative law since the decision was first handed down in 1984.
It involves a two-step test: First, judges decide if Congress has in the statute directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If it is ambiguous, courts defer to agencies as long as their actions are based on a “permissible construction.”
Some of the high court’s conservatives have raised concern about the precedent and how it has expanded the reach of agencies’ authority.
Now, the justices will take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn it. The high court announced the move on Monday in a brief, unsigned order — as is typical — indicating at least four justices agreed to take up the case.
Herring fishing company Loper Bright Enterprises is appealing a ruling that left in place a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation based on the doctrine.
Former Apple employee gets prison term for $17M fraud scheme Federal judge blocks Illinois assault weapons ban The regulation requires herring fishing boats to allow a federal observer aboard to oversee operations and compensate them for their time. The company argues the regulation significantly decreases their profit margin, and the agency had no authorization to impose it.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government, deferring to NMFS after finding that the law at issue was ambiguous.
“Nearly four decades of judicial experience with Chevron have demonstrated that courts are incapable of applying its two-step Chevron framework in a consistent manner,” attorneys for Loper Bright Enterprises wrote in court filings.
What needs to be reversed is Wickard v Filburn.
Something tells me that offending the enviro-nuts is most effective when picking fights. They’re just a bunch of white elitists-’educated’. It’s the rest of us who do the heavy lifting work. Their forte is talking a big game-grifters for sex. If it works I’d be one of them too.
Do we need an EPA? Take it out and watch them go crazy. Would blacks care? They’d probably laugh at them.
If you wish to inform us, then why don’t you explain?!
I hope so. It’s about time to roll back some of the authority federal agencies have taken for themselves.
What could possibly be more important to our country than mandating electric vehicles? This is something that SHOULD be decided by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by some unaccountable rule-writer in the EPA.
Exactly right. The problem with the Chevron doctrine is that as it has been interpreted and applied, it works as a one-way ratchet in favor of ever expanding agency authority.
It’s one thing to defer to an agency’s interpretation of issues when they truly involve technical matters beyond the scope of an average judge. It’s quite another to defer to an agency interpretation that expands it’s own jurisdiction, simply because the agency wants more power, or thinks it can “do better.”
In the latter circumstance, the Court should say “no,” and tell the agency that it needs to get Congress to explicitly approve the expansion of its authority.
“What needs to be reversed is Wickard v Filburn.”
Then Miller.
L
“If you wish to inform us, then why don’t you explain!?”
Why don’t you look it up for yourself?
L
Wickard is also a patent sophistry for conflating potential interstate commerce with actual interstate commerce. It's like arguing a potential murder is an actual murder.
Another example would be the BATFE’s recent redefinition of a firearm receiver to include 80% receivers. The 80% rule was a reasonable compromise that the regime’s gun grabbers can’t stand, so now they risk having all AR style two-part receivers being ruled not to be firearms under the GCA, which some judges have already ruled.
Obviously, so strike it down.
USSC ruled that ALL commerce was interstate commerce. If farmer Joe plants his own food, he’ll buy less food from interstate commerce, thereby affecting interstate commerce, therefore being interstate commerce.
If they rule correctly, a step in that direction!
Agree, and that should happen immediately after the Chevron doctrine is overturned.
I'm no legal eagle by any stretch, it appears (to me) that the Supreme Court has finally woken up to federal agency overreach and Congress not doing its job.
Federal Agency over-reach & bureaucratic "rule" is a huge part of the deep state that Legit President Trump rails against.
I support overturning the Chevron doctrine, follwed by Wickard v. Filburn and then Miller.
BTW: I don't give a damn' what kind of chaos overturning the three does. Can't be any worse than what we have now. Can only be better!
LET MY PEOPLE GO!
This is a good step forward. Limit federal agencies to do exactly and only exactly what the congress approved.
This forum is for those who can self educate themselves and are intellectually curious. If you insist on being spoon fed information, perhaps this isn't the forum for you.
Sure.
First I want to challenge you with a thought: simply ignoring the actual intent of the commerce clause to let Congress do something about States abusing their own police powers in order to set up legal obstacles to the Citizens of other States when they engage in commerce within a State other than their own, or to make commerce regular, in terms of regulatory authority which of the following is more far reaching?
To regulate commerce between the States or to regulate commerce or activity within a State but which is not commerce between the States?
Does the lesser power , the less far reaching into the Jurisdictions of the States, justify the greater effectively limitless power?
Our modern Court is so backwards that they claim a power to not only regulate things which are not commerce among the States but which merely affect commerce among the States even if they themselves are not commerce at all.
Which was the case in the instance I cited. A farmer was growing crops for his own use, and to feed IIRC his own animals, and the FDR administration told him he could not grow those crops without their permission because doing so affected commerce locally, snd therefore nationally.
He was not engaging in commerce at all by growing those crops, for he was neither buying or selling those crops.
FDR and the Court were wrong first about the intent of the clause itself, for it does not even exist to permit the federal to lord it over private persons or privately held entities when they choose to engage in commerce in multiple States.
And they were also wrong about the power they stole for the federal to regulate commerce within a State or to regulate any any all activity people may undertake under the pretext that these somehow affect commerce among the States.
Agreed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.