3 ms·

That’s not really the question being decided about Chevron, though. That’s a much bigger question about the constitutionality of the independent agencies themse

by w4 3y ago

That’s not really the question being decided about Chevron, though. That’s a much bigger question about the constitutionality of the independent agencies themselves. The question at hand in this case is basically whether or not the judiciary should, and can, exercise its power of review over the actions of these agencies. Right now the Supreme Court has said, in Chevron, that it should not and that lower courts cannot. This may well change in this current case.

threatofrain 3y ago
From my reading, part of Chevron was about whether Congress had delegated authority to an agency. > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. > The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress. If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.
- w4 3y ago
  Sort of. My understanding is that courts very much have the power to knock down agencies acting outside of their legislative authority, even under Chevron. That’s not what the debate about Chevron is about. The debate around Chevron is about the deference that the courts have decided they must give to actions taken by the agencies which are a “reasonable” reading of their enabling statutes. In practice this means that the courts cannot review the vast majority of the actions of agencies, unless those actions are outrageous oversteps of the authority they were granted by Congress.

by w4 3y ago

threatofrain 3y ago

From my reading, part of Chevron was about whether Congress had delegated authority to an agency. > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. > The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress. If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.

w4 3y ago
Sort of. My understanding is that courts very much have the power to knock down agencies acting outside of their legislative authority, even under Chevron. That’s not what the debate about Chevron is about. The debate around Chevron is about the deference that the courts have decided they must give to actions taken by the agencies which are a “reasonable” reading of their enabling statutes. In practice this means that the courts cannot review the vast majority of the actions of agencies, unless those actions are outrageous oversteps of the authority they were granted by Congress.