9 ms·

I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for r

• HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Congress can still delegate chevron style. They just have to explicitly do so
  • Balgair 2y ago
    There's already been a big issue with 'regulatory capture' and lobbying in government. Congress is only going to delegate when some other entity, likely a business, isn't already writing the law/regulation. A concrete example: Boeing is going to up their lobbying game hard. They can now not only help write the laws, but help choose who says they've broken them. There is no way that it will be good for passengers before it is good for stockholders.
    • dotnet00 2y ago
      Good thing Boeing hasn't already been doing that /s
      • the_gastropod 2y ago
        Burning a man alive with a stubbed toe: "He was already injured!". Yes. Lobbying is already a huge problem. This ruling exclusively makes it worse.
        • dotnet00 2y ago
          How is it worse that now they need to lobby Congress instead of just getting the FAA to say that they can certify their planes themselves?
    • deltarholamda 2y ago
      This is done with the regulatory agencies now, i.e. the revolving door from government agency to private sector. Worse, in some ways, because there's no real paper trail, such as donations to politicians or PACs.
      • autoexec 2y ago
        Bribes to politicians rarely include paper trails, Super PACs don't either. The problem of vast amounts of dark money in politics is well documented.
    • megaman821 2y ago
      Good thing people from Boeing and Goldman Sachs aren't working in these agencies now, making these rules for the advantage of their former/future employer.
  • skywhopper 2y ago
    The fact that Chevron has been the law of the land for 40 years means that Congress did intend for it to continue to be the case. It’s ridiculous to claim otherwise.
• maxwell 2y ago
  What side effects?
  • curiousllama 2y ago
    This basically flips the judicial review logic from "did the regulator act within the scope of the law?" to "are there other ways the regulator could have acted that would also be within the scope of the law? If so, the judge decides which set of actions the regulator must take" I.e., anything Congress does not explicitly state in a law is now determined by federal judges. At the extreme, this is aggrandizing a very wide scope of power to low-level federal judges to essentially ignore congressional intent.
    • nimish 2y ago
      The entire purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law. This is what they are supposed to do. Chevron curtailed this essential power in favor of taking an agency at its word, which is quite a dangerous stance.
      • CuriouslyC 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
          Yeah I’ll have a conversation about the nuances of authority delegation with people who aren’t actively trying to make America a theist state. Separation of church and state is non negotiable requirement for maintaining a civil society.
          • renewiltord 2y ago
            > Separation of church and state is non negotiable requirement for maintaining a civil society. It's obviously negotiable since Christmas is the only religious holiday for the Federal Government.
• dilippkumar 2y ago
  > Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
  • unethical_ban 2y ago
    We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.
    • Mountain_Skies 2y ago
      What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?
      • unethical_ban 2y ago
        I think a technocratic executive bureaucracy, created and overseen by the legislature, is better than demanding the legislature directly craft all regulations and have judges adjudicate every nuance.
        • Gormo 2y ago
          Why do you think that's better? Whose priorities and interests do we expect these 'technocratic executive bureaucracies' to pursue if allowed to be the arbiters of their own authority, and what mechanism would ensure they remain accountable to the public and operate within the applicable constraints of prevailing law and the constiution?
          • unethical_ban 2y ago
            Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life? Why do you think federal agencies are arbiters of their own authority? Congress created them, Congress can reel them in. I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate. Maybe, MAYBE some kind of rubber stamp process where legislators get a 90 day window on rejecting new regulations with a "default approve". But I have no faith that a modern society can have all rules and edge cases pre-emptively defined in law.
• lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This isn't accurate. Agencies will just need to work with Congress to help them write laws which make sense according to how the agency would like something to regulated.
  • waveBidder 2y ago
    except agencies need to be able to work on timelines faster than once a decade
    • CuriouslyC 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • dhosek 2y ago
        It’s also what the more intelligent voters on the far right do get. Put the power in the hands of the wealthy, where they want it.
      • AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
        [dead]
      • intended 2y ago
        The less intelligent voters on the far right arent your problem. They are your distraction. Your problem is the VASTLY more informed elites, who spend their time funding teams and campaigns. Teams who get into the details, who plan the messaging, do the lobbying, and provide the scripts that are repeated to those who listen. It’s the guy who is a middle manager at a campaign, the lawyers figuring out which courts need to be influenced, the wording of which law to be switched, the people who map out each agency org chart and read the by laws to figure out how to dismantle the agency. It’s those doctors, those lawyers, those analysts, those consultants and experts who are doing the work.
        • CuriouslyC 2y ago
• hindsightbias 2y ago
  > easily dispose of 40 years As I tried to explain to people in 2016, your kids are going to be living with the consequences of your vote for generations. We are in a new era of judicial supremacy and they are out of bubble gum.
  • catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    >"We are in a new era of judicial supremacy" Are you from Latin America?Martinelli (Panama) has been complaining of "Civil Dictatorship" since being on trial and hidden inside the Nicaraguan Embassy. Chavez (Costa Rica) is denouncing a Democratic "Dictatorship then Tyranny" because he finds independece of powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) cumbersome. Dangerous direction, people complaining about power balance checks
    • cthalupa 2y ago
      The already extremely powerful judiciary continually increasing their power and removing the power of the legislative and executive branches is not exactly something that encourages power balance checks. As for whether or not the person you are replying to is from a certain region of the planet - what are you trying to imply here? I'm from the USA - does that mean that I agree with everything Trump or Biden says? This is a weird, and IMO, distasteful, way to make an argument.
      • catlikesshrimp 2y ago
        There are political currents which critize traditional media and independence of powers. Like another current touting "A new world order" (offtopic) The balance of powers is paramount. And it is usually the executive which grabs it when the oportunity arises: not only wars, but also exceptions like terrorism prevention (overblown) and the recent covid pandemic (all countries)
• rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. It has already been that way for a while. From the decision: "Because Chevron’s justifying presumption is, as Members of the Court have often recognized, a fiction, the Court has spent the better part of four decades imposing one limitation on Chevron after another. Confronted with the byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions that has resulted, some courts have simply bypassed Chevron or failed to heed its various steps and nuances. The Court, for its part, has not deferred to an agency interpretation under Chevron since 2016." ... "Given the Court’s constant tinkering with and eventual turn away from Chevron, it is hard to see how anyone could reasonably expect a court to rely on Chevron in any particular case or expect it to produce readily foreseeable outcomes."
• bigmattystyles 2y ago
  Stare decisis only matters when you're in the minority
• HumblyTossed 2y ago
  > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This is the goal. Want to pollute? You will soon when the EPA has no teeth.
  • TeeMassive 2y ago
    This could go the other way. All agencies answer to the President. The President could just scrap all regulations or just not enforce them.
    • intended 2y ago
      OH! I remember what this sounds like! This sounds like Brexit! People I spoke to said “it could go the other way”. Not only was it an impossibility, it was a prayer that the entire country could get lucky. To which I raise you the 2008 crisis and the defanging of the SEC. Since it looks like people want to neuter weather agencies, I believe its going to be a fascinating couple of years.
      • TeeMassive 2y ago
        I don't think having some sort of philosopher kings bureaucrats is better just because you disagree with some democratic choices
        • intended 2y ago
          Of course. The philosopher king bureaucrats are terrible. I dont know of which ones we are talking about. But See how well Brexit is going! Plus 2008 was an amazing year. Also, looking to make good policy is easy.
          • TeeMassive 2y ago
            Just saying "but Brexit" is a non-sequiture
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
• cmiles74 2y ago
  Essentially every regulating agency will have to get their charter re-written and passed through Congress a second time. While that happens, we can expect to see a flood of cases decided under a variety of standards in lower courts. I think this is going to end up making real mess, it's definitely going to slow regulation and enforcement across the board.
  • sangnoir 2y ago
    > Essentially every regulating agency will have to get their charter re-written and passed through Congress a second time More likely a limited subset of those agencies will survive that process due to ongoing efforts of folk whose self-confessed long-term goal is the "deconstruction of the administrative state". With this ruling, all they have to do is do nothing, or obstruct the passing of any law that attempts to return to the agencies what the supreme court stripped from them.
• anonymouse008 2y ago
  I'm thankful. Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances.' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.' We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision from last session. Before anyone says there were still checks and balances - if you feel the need to, you have no idea what Cheveron meant
  • godzillabrennus 2y ago
    Exactly. If Congress seeks to regulate air, water, land, and space pollution, from American companies, they should appoint industry experts who intend to leave public sector jobs for lucrative private sector jobs by going to work for the companies the laws need to regulate. It’s worked great for politicians who become lobbyists or prosecutors who go work for big law. It’ll work great here too.
    • intended 2y ago
      Absolutely! We should also make sure that no one in agencies is safe. It’s only the industries and courts which can do the work - only for a short while, you know, till congress gets less gridlocked. Seeing how polarized and partisan things are, it will only be a few decades! Plus seeing how some of the court positions have been, I can only think that lobbying is going to become a massive business ! So much growth!
      • cryptonector 2y ago
        regulatory capture has joined the chat
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • throw0101b 2y ago
    > Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. Delegation dates back to (at least) the early 1900s: > Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21 * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html And from 1825: > It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. * https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html Delegation is a key component of governance and predates the US with Ministers of the Crown, and once the the US was formed with Secretaries/Directors/etc, all of latter which are approved by the US Legislative branch through (e.g.) Senate-approved appointments.
• ISL 2y ago
  With only a few minutes thought on the subject, it seems like Congress could explicitly amend the APA to state that the interpretation in Chevron is correct. They might not do that, but from my initial non-expert read of today's opinion, the Court only looked to the APA, not the Constitution in generating its ruling.
• jameshart 2y ago
  Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action. By 2040 the normal procedure every April will be, rather than filing a tax return, filing a suit in federal court disputing the right of the IRS to determine whether your income is actually ‘income’. Eighty federalist society AI lawbots will automatically file amicus briefs in support of your case. The court clerkputer will autoschedule oral arguments at the first available date, around 2175.
  • Gormo 2y ago
    > Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action. Sounds great. How we got to the point where executive-branch agencies were making rules with the force of law, binding upon the public with no judicial oversight, is a mystery to me, but it's good to see that the courts are taking their responsibilities seriously again, and restoring some measure of checks and balances.
    • quickthrowman 2y ago
      It’s not a mystery, Congress delegated their authority to the executive branch willingly.
      • Gormo 2y ago
        That's not what's at issue here, even remotely. Whatever Congress did willingly was enacted in statute law. The entire question here is who is responsible for interpreting that statue law. This entire debate is downstream of legislation.
    • ytpete 2y ago
      There's been plenty of judicial oversight – courts could always overturn any regulations or actions by an agency that the court decided were not based on a "reasonable" interpretation of the law passed by Congress.
• cryptonector 2y ago
  You misunderstand the situation. Agencies will still get to make regulations, but where there's any legitimate question/controversy over their interpretation of the law the courts will make the final decision -- final, at least, until Congress modifies the law to get whatever effect they had wanted (which might not be the one the agency wanted). Also, by and large the vast majority of regulations will stand.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• jkic47 2y ago
  Actually, the side effects of allowing unelected Reg agencies to make decisions (and the quality of those decisions to date) is exactly what is driving their decision. Congress being parsimonious with laws is probably a good thing...read their Stare decisis paragraphs. Here is the decision for you to read, in case you hadn't yet read it before posting. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
• Gormo 2y ago
  > I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. I'm impressed that Congress had the audacity 40 years ago to attempt to take judicial authority away from its constitutional locus in the courts and re-assign it to executive branch agencies, expecting them to be exercise reliable oversight over their own authority.
• briantakita 2y ago
  > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. And that is a bad thing? If it is, I'll take it. The agencies have been ineffective at their stated missions. They have been revolving door power grabs since the end of WW2. You know, that time when we let all those "former" Nazis into prominent roles of government agencies? It's not like the EPA stopped PFAS from contaminating water all over Earth. Or microplastics being embedded in the penile tissue of most men...Among the other "miracles of modern science". The EPA is too busy going after small landowners doing water management. And if agencies are so wonderful. Why don't we have a Department of Peace & a Department of Prosperity for All? So the agencies cannot make up their own laws anymore? Cry me a PFAS laden river.
• emmelaich 2y ago
  Nah, they just have to do more work to ensure the law is clear enough to not attract too many challenges. Letting a government decide in the face of ambiguous, poorly written laws is so obviously a wrong thing, that you wonder why the original Chevron decision was made. It really is the other side of the coin to "ignorance of the law is no defence". It is incumbent on the govt to make the law as clear as is reasonably possible.