4 ms·

Constitutional scholars since the founding of the nation have taken no issue with Congress delegating authority to federal agencies, and the initial Chevron dec

Constitutional scholars since the founding of the nation have taken no issue with Congress delegating authority to federal agencies, and the initial Chevron decision followed along those lines. Why is it only now, with the hyper-politicization of the SC, with interested parties spending significant money providing luxury and lavish accommodations to at least one member of the SC, that this previously accepted interpretation of the constitution is suddenly in question?

rayiner 2y ago
Chevron is about who interprets statutory law, agencies or courts. That question has been controversial for 100 years, ever since we have had administrative agencies. For example, the Supreme Court decided in 1944 that courts should give some respect to agency interpretations, but the court had the final say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co. Chevron didn’t create the deference concept until 40 years after that. Chevron was always contentious, and applied by courts in a rather haphazard way. But overturning it wasn’t “political.” It was originally decided by five republicans and a Democrat (with three justices not participating) and was overturned by six republicans. What happened was an ideological shift in the Republican Party to separation of powers that’s been going on since the 1980s. Law nerds have been talking about this for decades. The only thing "politicized" is how the media is using public ignorance of how the legal system works to attack the Supreme Court for an extremely academic legal issue.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  Citing a prior ruling that contains more precedence around the idea that federal agencies should have the right to interpret and enforce regulations is an interesting way to argue that it's a controversial topic. You cite a link that explicitly talks about deference and then claim that the concept didn't exist until 40 years later. I'm also unsure how the political makeup of the court 80 years ago has anything to do with whether or not the court is more political now than ever, particularly in reference to something that actually is controversial - a justice and his family receiving significant compensation from politically motivated companies, including those that have a vested interest in decisions that he refuses to recuse himself from.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Citing a prior ruling that contains more precedence around the idea that federal agencies should have the right to interpret and enforce regulations is an interesting way to argue that it's a controversial topic. That's not what Skidmore said. It said that courts should defer to agency interpretations to the degree they are "persuasive." Which is almost a truism--obviously courts can defer to reasoning they find persuasive. Chevron went further, and required courts to defer to agency interpretations if they were "reasonable," even if the court would have interpreted the law differently. > I'm also unsure how the political makeup of the court 80 years ago has anything to do with whether or not the court is more political now than ever The Court is less political than ever. In the mid-20th century, the Court was at the peak of politicization, striking down democratically adopted laws based on "emanations from penumbras" of constitutional provisions. Regarding Thomas, you sound like you're reading from some sort of talking points. Thomas was the OG constitutional purist. The notion that he's developed this views because he want on vacations with his personal friend is absurd.
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      I imagine both of us sound to the other like we're reading from a list of talking points. On your side, I see your replies as twisting things around to try and get to being right through some narrow definition - obviously Chevron further codified things - otherwise we'd just reference Skidmore and be done with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it was codifying existing practices, which is my entire point. As for Thomas, I do not understand how any rational human being could make excuses for him (or Alito, to a smaller extent.) If you don't think it is a massive conflict of interest to be taking part in rulings related to the interests of Crow when he has received millions of dollars worth of perks, vacations, etc. from him, I don't know that we can have a serious conversation. How can anyone remain impartial when the interests of someone who has lavished them with the equivalent of many millions of dollars in gifts are in the balance? I'm also not stating that Thomas is newly compromised, so I'm not sure that his original positions mean much when I believe he's been compromised from the start. The difference is now that he and his compatriots are firmly in the driver's seat.
- jpmoral 2y ago
  > But overturning it wasn’t “political.” It was originally decided by five republicans and a Democrat (with three justices not participating) and was overturned by six republicans. What happened was an ideological shift in the Republican Party Your conclusion doesn't match your argument. The original decision was voted in along party lines, the party ideology changed, and now it's been overturned again along party lines. How is that not political?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > Chevron was always contentious […] Chevron was a unanimous 6-0 decision: there was no debate on its principles at the time. Chevron said that it was not up to the courts to decide policy when there was ambiguity: > 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. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." If there is ambiguity it is either on purpose (to allow flexibility) or by accident (unforeseen or change circumstances): it was thought that it is best for policy makers to deal with that ambiguity. Remember: the agencies are headed by an Executive that is elected (President), and run my administrators (Secretaries, Directors) that are Senate-confirmed. There is connection to the will of The People throughout their operation.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > there was no debate on its principles at the time The part that made Chevron consequential wasn’t recognised at the time.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      I dispute this. It seems to me that if Congress was vague, it knew it was ceding power to the agency to decide; and that the court in Chevron considered it normal that the fallout from poor decisions should land upon those seeking legislative or executive re-election. I can see both good and bad outcomes from today's decision (though I think in the short term it will multiply litigative and executive brinksmanship without elevating legislative standards), but I really don't agree with the idea that the justices who originally decided it were just clueless about the implications.
Matticus_Rex 2y ago
Erm... I think there will be problems as a result of this, but your comment is wildly bad on a number of levels. #1 - Chevron deference as a rule comes out of Chevron, and the idea that Chevron just encoded something that was already always done is ahistorical. Both before Chevron and going forward, courts will still often defer to agency interpretation when that makes sense. They just won't be compelled to look at it so uncritically. #2 - The idea that Chevron has been uncontroversial until now is totally detached from reality, and is a dead giveaway that you really don't know much about this.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  #1 - Prior to Chevron, did Congress delegate authority to federal agencies to impose regulations? The answer is yes. Prior to Skidmore, did Congress delegate authority to federal agencies to impose regulations? The answer is yes. The fact that Chevron codified things in a more structured way does not change the fact that it was a ruling about an existing practice. How are you arguing otherwise? Both rulings were about things that were already happening. Neither Skidmore or Chevron resulted in the brand new practice of federal agencies having regulatory power. #2 - Of course there is always dissent around laws and decisions. Obviously, however, the majority of the past century has had further support for federal agencies having regulatory power. It is only the past half decade where there has been significant pushback. People are sitting here complaining about how for so long the SC increased their deference to Chevron - how would that be the case if it was controversial within the court? Weird that we had more than 70 years of the courts just strengthening their position on this if it was so controversial the whole time, rather than something that has been a significant change over the past half decade.

rayiner 2y ago

Chevron is about who interprets statutory law, agencies or courts. That question has been controversial for 100 years, ever since we have had administrative agencies. For example, the Supreme Court decided in 1944 that courts should give some respect to agency interpretations, but the court had the final say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co. Chevron didn’t create the deference concept until 40 years after that. Chevron was always contentious, and applied by courts in a rather haphazard way. But overturning it wasn’t “political.” It was originally decided by five republicans and a Democrat (with three justices not participating) and was overturned by six republicans. What happened was an ideological shift in the Republican Party to separation of powers that’s been going on since the 1980s. Law nerds have been talking about this for decades. The only thing "politicized" is how the media is using public ignorance of how the legal system works to attack the Supreme Court for an extremely academic legal issue.

cthalupa 2y ago
Citing a prior ruling that contains more precedence around the idea that federal agencies should have the right to interpret and enforce regulations is an interesting way to argue that it's a controversial topic. You cite a link that explicitly talks about deference and then claim that the concept didn't exist until 40 years later. I'm also unsure how the political makeup of the court 80 years ago has anything to do with whether or not the court is more political now than ever, particularly in reference to something that actually is controversial - a justice and his family receiving significant compensation from politically motivated companies, including those that have a vested interest in decisions that he refuses to recuse himself from.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Citing a prior ruling that contains more precedence around the idea that federal agencies should have the right to interpret and enforce regulations is an interesting way to argue that it's a controversial topic. That's not what Skidmore said. It said that courts should defer to agency interpretations to the degree they are "persuasive." Which is almost a truism--obviously courts can defer to reasoning they find persuasive. Chevron went further, and required courts to defer to agency interpretations if they were "reasonable," even if the court would have interpreted the law differently. > I'm also unsure how the political makeup of the court 80 years ago has anything to do with whether or not the court is more political now than ever The Court is less political than ever. In the mid-20th century, the Court was at the peak of politicization, striking down democratically adopted laws based on "emanations from penumbras" of constitutional provisions. Regarding Thomas, you sound like you're reading from some sort of talking points. Thomas was the OG constitutional purist. The notion that he's developed this views because he want on vacations with his personal friend is absurd.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    I imagine both of us sound to the other like we're reading from a list of talking points. On your side, I see your replies as twisting things around to try and get to being right through some narrow definition - obviously Chevron further codified things - otherwise we'd just reference Skidmore and be done with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it was codifying existing practices, which is my entire point. As for Thomas, I do not understand how any rational human being could make excuses for him (or Alito, to a smaller extent.) If you don't think it is a massive conflict of interest to be taking part in rulings related to the interests of Crow when he has received millions of dollars worth of perks, vacations, etc. from him, I don't know that we can have a serious conversation. How can anyone remain impartial when the interests of someone who has lavished them with the equivalent of many millions of dollars in gifts are in the balance? I'm also not stating that Thomas is newly compromised, so I'm not sure that his original positions mean much when I believe he's been compromised from the start. The difference is now that he and his compatriots are firmly in the driver's seat.
jpmoral 2y ago
> But overturning it wasn’t “political.” It was originally decided by five republicans and a Democrat (with three justices not participating) and was overturned by six republicans. What happened was an ideological shift in the Republican Party Your conclusion doesn't match your argument. The original decision was voted in along party lines, the party ideology changed, and now it's been overturned again along party lines. How is that not political?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw0101b 2y ago
> Chevron was always contentious […] Chevron was a unanimous 6-0 decision: there was no debate on its principles at the time. Chevron said that it was not up to the courts to decide policy when there was ambiguity: > 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. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." If there is ambiguity it is either on purpose (to allow flexibility) or by accident (unforeseen or change circumstances): it was thought that it is best for policy makers to deal with that ambiguity. Remember: the agencies are headed by an Executive that is elected (President), and run my administrators (Secretaries, Directors) that are Senate-confirmed. There is connection to the will of The People throughout their operation.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > there was no debate on its principles at the time The part that made Chevron consequential wasn’t recognised at the time.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    I dispute this. It seems to me that if Congress was vague, it knew it was ceding power to the agency to decide; and that the court in Chevron considered it normal that the fallout from poor decisions should land upon those seeking legislative or executive re-election. I can see both good and bad outcomes from today's decision (though I think in the short term it will multiply litigative and executive brinksmanship without elevating legislative standards), but I really don't agree with the idea that the justices who originally decided it were just clueless about the implications.

Matticus_Rex 2y ago

Erm... I think there will be problems as a result of this, but your comment is wildly bad on a number of levels. #1 - Chevron deference as a rule comes out of Chevron, and the idea that Chevron just encoded something that was already always done is ahistorical. Both before Chevron and going forward, courts will still often defer to agency interpretation when that makes sense. They just won't be compelled to look at it so uncritically. #2 - The idea that Chevron has been uncontroversial until now is totally detached from reality, and is a dead giveaway that you really don't know much about this.

cthalupa 2y ago
#1 - Prior to Chevron, did Congress delegate authority to federal agencies to impose regulations? The answer is yes. Prior to Skidmore, did Congress delegate authority to federal agencies to impose regulations? The answer is yes. The fact that Chevron codified things in a more structured way does not change the fact that it was a ruling about an existing practice. How are you arguing otherwise? Both rulings were about things that were already happening. Neither Skidmore or Chevron resulted in the brand new practice of federal agencies having regulatory power. #2 - Of course there is always dissent around laws and decisions. Obviously, however, the majority of the past century has had further support for federal agencies having regulatory power. It is only the past half decade where there has been significant pushback. People are sitting here complaining about how for so long the SC increased their deference to Chevron - how would that be the case if it was controversial within the court? Weird that we had more than 70 years of the courts just strengthening their position on this if it was so controversial the whole time, rather than something that has been a significant change over the past half decade.