4 ms·

So if I work for the ohhh I dunno department of energy, and im working on rules for, uh, i dunno, radiation exposure. Does this mean that DOE cant what—set lega

So if I work for the ohhh I dunno department of energy, and im working on rules for, uh, i dunno, radiation exposure. Does this mean that DOE cant what—set legally safe exposure levels? The court has to?

colejohnson66 2y ago
Or Congress
xboxnolifes 2y ago
Only if congress didn't expressly give the department the right to do so in legislation.
vharuck 2y ago
(IANAL, but here's my reading) You can set them. The difference is, if the DOE is sued over that regulation, the court will make it's own judgement as to what the law intended. Should there be radiation exposure rules? If so, what should the levels be? How should they be measured? What is covered by those rules? The DOE will get its say. But the court would be free to conduct its own research or give whatever weight it wants to the plaintiff's arguments for interpreting the law.
salawat 2y ago
There will be no controversy. The Court will refer to DoE's definitions/rulemaking. Issue closed. Now, if DoE started publishing guidelines about the radiation levels in bananas to be marketed in the U.S., the Courts would look at DoE like they have a second head, and tell them Congress never intended for them to govern banana radiation levels. That's the FDA's job. Now let's make it more interesting. Let's say DoE passes down rulemaking around the how radiation exposure resulting from food intake by Nuclear plant employees gets factored into lifetime exposure, and Dole sues to have their bananas excluded from the calculation. Under Chevron, check the statute, no mention of banana-ry. Check the agency definitions for reasonability: Guideline related to management of Energy infra/workers in the United States. Okay. The Government is passing something that applies to all DoE covered workers. Okay. No single entity (purveyor of fruit) is singled out. No invalid statutory constructions were used. Check with FDA for corroborating info. Okay. Tell Dole DoE's rulemaking request is ultimately reasonable and within scope for fulfilling DoE's narrowly scoped mandate; end of story. The gist is the Court can't just ignore a request for redress of grievance via deferring to the Executive Agency in question anymore. Obligatory IANAL. Just my read of the decision. The justices really drilled home on review of administrative law being the job of the courts. Not the Executive.
cryptonector 2y ago
I recommend you read the actual decision.

colejohnson66 2y ago

Or Congress

xboxnolifes 2y ago

Only if congress didn't expressly give the department the right to do so in legislation.

vharuck 2y ago

(IANAL, but here's my reading) You can set them. The difference is, if the DOE is sued over that regulation, the court will make it's own judgement as to what the law intended. Should there be radiation exposure rules? If so, what should the levels be? How should they be measured? What is covered by those rules? The DOE will get its say. But the court would be free to conduct its own research or give whatever weight it wants to the plaintiff's arguments for interpreting the law.

salawat 2y ago

There will be no controversy. The Court will refer to DoE's definitions/rulemaking. Issue closed. Now, if DoE started publishing guidelines about the radiation levels in bananas to be marketed in the U.S., the Courts would look at DoE like they have a second head, and tell them Congress never intended for them to govern banana radiation levels. That's the FDA's job. Now let's make it more interesting. Let's say DoE passes down rulemaking around the how radiation exposure resulting from food intake by Nuclear plant employees gets factored into lifetime exposure, and Dole sues to have their bananas excluded from the calculation. Under Chevron, check the statute, no mention of banana-ry. Check the agency definitions for reasonability: Guideline related to management of Energy infra/workers in the United States. Okay. The Government is passing something that applies to all DoE covered workers. Okay. No single entity (purveyor of fruit) is singled out. No invalid statutory constructions were used. Check with FDA for corroborating info. Okay. Tell Dole DoE's rulemaking request is ultimately reasonable and within scope for fulfilling DoE's narrowly scoped mandate; end of story. The gist is the Court can't just ignore a request for redress of grievance via deferring to the Executive Agency in question anymore. Obligatory IANAL. Just my read of the decision. The justices really drilled home on review of administrative law being the job of the courts. Not the Executive.

cryptonector 2y ago

I recommend you read the actual decision.