17 ms·

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this

• darby_nine 2y ago
  > Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. That the court is allowed to exercise power not enumerated anywhere is a major problem, just not a new one. We really should have legislated their role centuries ago.
• sqeaky 2y ago
  Fundamentally, people are suffering because the courts are acting for political expedience instead of doing and saying what's right and correct. Congress should get its Act together, but one group acting in responsible is not license for another group to act irresponsible.
  • mjfl 2y ago
    acting for political expedience? They are making heavily impactful, politically unpopular moves to correct what they believe to be long term errors buried in court precedent.
    • freejazz 2y ago
      It's politically expedient for their goals, your post explains exactly why: they are hugely unpopular moves, if for any reason, because of the tremendous uncertainty they create in the law at large.
      • goodluckchuck 2y ago
        I don’t buy the idea that this creates uncertainty. When I read a statute I have a level of certainty as to what it means. When I read executive branch rules interpreting the statute I have a better understanding of what the executive intends to do, but - as they don’t write the law - it doesn’t provide much clarity as to what the statute actually means. The executive can and should continue to provide guidance about its intentions, but saying that the law is whatever the executive intends it to be is smoke.
        • freejazz 2y ago
          > When I read a statute I have a level of certainty as to what it means Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer.
• autoexec 2y ago
  > Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists and there's effectively zero chance that a bunch of republicans who want to dismantle the already inadequate regulations that keep entire communities from being poisoned will vote to remove their power to do exactly that through the supreme court.
  • kolbe 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • Mountain_Skies 2y ago
    How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • malcolmgreaves 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
      • cryptonector 2y ago
        Gerrymandering is self-limiting. You can gerrymander to increase your party's number of House seats from your state, or you can gerrymander to make your seats more secure, but you can't do both! You can make some seats more secure while others weaker so as to strike a balance between these two goals, but you won't get as many seats as if you optimized for seat count and you won't get as many safe seats as if you optimized for seat safety. If you optimize for seat count then a wave election can easily turn many of those seats over to the other party, and with them control of the House. If you optimize for seat safety then a wave election need only turn over a few of your seats to switch control of the House. We have had lots of wave elections in the past 100 years: 1920, 1932, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010. Three of those are in the past 20 years. Four in the past 30 years. Gerrymandering isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cannot make any party impervious to wave elections. This, anyways, only as long as all House districts in each state have roughly the same population.
• skywhopper 2y ago
  Likewise Congress could clearly state that agencies are not allowed to interpret the gaps. If Congress was unhappy with how the executive branch was working, it could solve the problem easily and directly. So the Court, when making this decision, was not concerned about what’s “right” or even Constitutional. It showed its hand by disrupting existing rulemaking that has been going on and explicitly allowed by the Court and implicitly granted by Congress for decades. Changing the status quo on a fundamental de facto government structure is not good judiciating.
  • VincentEvans 2y ago
    I am not surprised that conservative-leaning court has put their finger on the scale of what they always described as “activism of agencies” and “legislating from the bench” by pushing the congress to act - I see it as consistent with conservative principles. I am not saying I agree with it or condemn it - rather stating the path forward. I too would like congress to start acting the part. They have the tools.
    • azemetre 2y ago
      How do you expect Congress to legislate when one side refuses to legislate?
      • VincentEvans 2y ago
        Congress also possesses a variety of tools to limit obstructionism if it so desires. But a more important point - is that congress is a tool of democracy itself and is a reflection of the attitudes and desires of the populace. If populace no longer has the aptitude to apply its rights to elect the government that serves its interests - then it will experience the consequences of such negligence and learn from them, which is also its right. Refusing it that right is something much worse - authoritarianism when an individual or a group gets to pick winners or losers.
        • kelnos 2y ago
• kolbe 2y ago
  This isn't actually clear. The duty to legislate arguably cannot be transferred... even with legislation.
  • VincentEvans 2y ago
    Valid point! I’d like to hear more regarding this concern. While I don’t necessarily view what I referred to as “interpreting the gaps” as synonymous with “legislate”, IANAL and would appreciate professional opinion here.
    • kolbe 2y ago
      Well, for example, the SEC has used a law from 80 years ago about retaining memos as justification for billions in fines against companies whose employees used whatsapp to say "the market is crazy" (or similarly benign things). All they did was "fill in a gap" to make this totally new law.
    • goodluckchuck 2y ago
      IMO The rule of law derives from precedent. Prior to courts there was the rule of the monarch. The common law then developed as courts resolved disputes. It was all gap. The authorities would say the accused did something wrong and should be punished, and the courts came up with things like “murder” and “negligence.” Statutes are a relatively new way of making laws. They’re crude. Rather than simply resolving a real dispute based on the facts of an actual situation (and limiting the scope to the same or similar situations), legislators twiddle their thumbs and prospectively guess at what situations might occur and which words may address a multitude of unpredictable nuances. Statutes are pretty terrible because they’re so hard to refine. If a situation bumps against the plain language of a statute, the courts are essentially compelled to absurd and unjust results. However, that’s democracy. The people say they want the power to make the law, they say they want the clarity of a statute over a law book, and their errors are better than an overthrow of the system.
      • anticensor 2y ago
        Precedents binding multiple courts is also relatively new (about 2.5 centuries). Before that, each court was effectively an island.
• cryptonector 2y ago
  The court decided this on statutory grounds because that's what this court likes to do: base decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. But it mentioned Marbury quite prominently and it's pretty clear that the court will not sustain a law that codifies Chevron.
  • VincentEvans 2y ago
    Can court override the power of congress to put Chevron into law? Have there been instances where court struck down a law passed by congress before?
    • chasd00 2y ago
      i don't remember my government class exactly but i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. I'm not sure if it can explicitly strike down a law but declaring it unconstitutional would be effectively the same.
      • bumby 2y ago
        >i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Interestingly, the ability to declare a law un/constitutional is not an enumerated power given to the court by the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared that power for itself in Marbury v. Madison and people have just went with it ever since.
        • goodluckchuck 2y ago
          It’s not really a separate power. Courts express their understanding of the law. Some laws are statutes, some are the constitution itself. If there are conflicts then the court will express its opinion on which is authoritative. What the Executive and Legislative branches choose to do after the fact are things those branches may do.
          • 2y ago
• matrix87 2y ago
  > Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. One could argue, similarly to overturning Roe, they're diverging from a very critical precedent which is going to trigger a flurry of lawsuits over the next couple years
  • jkic47 2y ago
    That was actually addressed on Page 7 of the decision. They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spend significant time arguing that stare decisis underpinning Roe v Wade is not valid.
    • philips 2y ago
      Arguing stare decisis was invalid when the reasoning behind even hearing the case is ideological was necessary- it essentially is the only reasoning they could make.
    • lesuorac 2y ago
      Do keep in mind Roe didn't have standing. There's no harm from denying somebody an abortion when they're not pregnant.
      • injb 2y ago
        So what though? I don't know exactly the reasoning for standing requirements, but they clearly weren't intended to prevent suits over things that affect millions of people in exactly the same way. I mean, standing would prevent man from suing to overturn a ban on women voting, but that's clearly a bug, not a feature.
        • 2y ago
• granzymes 2y ago
  I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence: > How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services. There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a “reasonable” interpretation of the statute. Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it with another. Later still, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, officials replaced that rule with a different one, all before President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention to reverse course for yet a fourth time. Each time, the government claimed its new rule was just as “reasonable” as the last. Rather than promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law, Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself remains unchanged.
  • fzeroracer 2y ago
    But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. We've gone through significant uncertainty and convulsive change as a result of the Supreme Court throwing out decades of precedence. This isn't to say this is always a bad thing, but the reasons for their past few decisions do not pass muster.
    • anigbrowl 2y ago
      It's not. I think this actually flips a lot of power back to the judicial branch in the short term, which is significant because federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments. Of course, Congress has the power to look at unexpected or perverse-seeming judicial outcomes and legislate accordingly, but the legislative process is typically slow and subject to various sorts of bargaining; a rather corruptible process.
    • tpmoney 2y ago
      >But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. That's sort of the point, because congress has abdicated their responsibility for so long, many of the "laws" and "rights" that exist in our legal framework are mere shadows of actual legislation. They're executive whims or judicial policies, both of which are inherently fragile and subject to sudden change. Roe v. Wade was the "law of the land" only to the extent that the courts continued to interpret an ambiguity in the law the same way as they always had. Congress had decades to shore up a case that even the jurist who were part of it said was extremely weak. Everyone knew it was fragile and the DNC cashed in on that fragility every election. Or consider medical marijuana, which is currently only un-prosecuted at the federal level because the president told the DEA to chill out for a bit. The fact that in November the next president could change their mind and conduct federal raids of dispensaries across the country is not a good thing. You might argue that they couldn't do that because the medical marijuana industries and laws are crafted to avoid crossing state lines, but that depends on A) ignoring decades of Wickard (which admittedly the current SCOTUS might be willing to do, but boy if you think this decision or Roe was controversial, that would be a doozy) and B) ignore the very obvious fact that some of that legal supply is leaking across state lines illegally. The fact that Net Neutrality is on again/off-again is another example of this. Major legal decisions are being left to the whims of two octogenarians who it's a miracle manage to get through the day without shitting their pants, and a judicial system that is inconsistent at the best of times. The courts have always been political, but if they are uniquely so at this time, it's because the folks interested in politics have figured out its easier to get what they want via executive fiat and judicial wrangling, and congress has learned their jobs and income are more secure when they don't have to take the blame for those things.
• s1k3s 2y ago
  Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US (generally speaking)?
  • CapitalistCartr 2y ago
    Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.
    • r00fus 2y ago
      Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.
      • staticman2 2y ago
        Congress cannot do that.
      • Gormo 2y ago
        Little known, I suspect, on account of being entirely false.
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > on account of being entirely false Congress can absolutely limit judicial review by statute. (It can’t remove it entirely.)
          • r00fus 2y ago
            This is exactly what I meant, and is described in this pdf: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967
          • westurner 2y ago
• zer0zzz 2y ago
  Except that the congress has been in a rut where it defaults to nothing of substance getting achieved
• kelnos 2y ago
  > Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Congress has already done that. Conservatives don't like that, calling the result the "administrative state". A very strict interpretation of the constitution could suggest that Congress cannot actually delegate legislative powers to executive branch agencies, and the conservative members of SCOTUS are (unfortunately) free to take up that interpretation.
• jmyeet 2y ago
  This is naive. I guarantee you that if Congress passed a law codifying Chevron, this same Court would overrule it on the grounds of some other doctrine they just completely made up in their minds, most likely the major questions doctrine ("MQD"). These self-described "originalists" (side note: "originalism" was invented in the 1980s) just completely made up MQD to justify overruling clear language by Congress if the issue was subjectively large enough. It was used to overrule clear authority given to forgive student debt, for example. I don't think you understand just how much of a power grab this Court has engaged in, which is funny because its supporters who are the same people who complain about "activist" liberal justices. MQD has essentially usurped the power of the other 2 branches of government whenever they see fit. Example: in the case yesterday when SCOTUS didn't understand what corruption was they said Congress had had the opportunity to clarify since 1986 and they chose not to so deference should be given to that inaction. Well, Chevron was decided in 1984 and no administration took action in the last 40 years. Where's that same deference? The Democrats can be faulted for not codifying Roe v. Wade but I guarantee you that, even if they had, it wouldn't matter. Thsi Court would've found some justification to overrule that. Deference to the states, that sort of thing. There is no fundamental princples in play here. It's entirely results-oriented.
• StarterPro 2y ago
  And we could all win the lottery, but let's not pretend half of the elected officials aren't brainwashed and the other half are so deep in pockets they use lint as a throw rug.
  • dadjoker 2y ago
    Aws compared to the unelected and unaccountable "expert" bureaucrats making arbitrary rules that do things like penalize you for collection rainwater on your own property?
• Animats 2y ago
  Congress can still legislate the outer perimeter of a law and let agencies grant exceptions. It just takes a different drafting style, which is easy, and Congressional willingness to accept responsibility for the outer limits, which is hard.
• pdonis 2y ago
  > Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. They could--but in the case of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is the law relevant to this case, they didn't. Indeed, as the Court's opinion points out, they did the opposite: the Act explicitly says that the courts shall interpret the law when doing so becomes necessary to resolve a case. Note that this actually limits the scope of this ruling in a way that does not appear to be recognized by commentators. The Court here is not saying that Congress can no longer pass a law that explicitly grants interpretive power to an executive branch agency. It's just saying that Congress did something different with this law.
• dehrmann 2y ago
  > Just like congress can legislate abortion laws That might violate the 10th Amendment since it wasn't explicitly delegated to the federal government.
  • underlipton 2y ago
    A wild 14th Amendment appears (they hate that one, too).
    • chrisco255 2y ago
      The part where it says "No state shall deprive any person of life...without due process"?
      • underlipton 2y ago
        The 14th Amendment was unambiguous in its intent, but subsequent malicious/activist judicial shenanigans watered it down, e.g., the Slaughter-House cases and the 1874 Section 1983 deletion.
• rhaksw 2y ago
  Congress cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.
  • bastawhiz 2y ago
    There's no issue with Congress interpreting laws here. The executive branch is (was). Which they have to do because how do you enforce a law that you do not have an interpretation of? If Congress disagrees with the judiciary's interpretation they can just pass a law that makes their interpretation the literal law.
    • rhaksw 2y ago
      The executive does not interpret law in the sense understood by the separation of powers. Interpretation is a judiciary power.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• tw04 2y ago
  >Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. This Supreme Court knows it. This is nothing more than deregulation on a scale not seen in modern American history. When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why.
  • r3db34rd 2y ago
    There will always be clean drinking water. Stop spreading FUD.
  • 0xBDB 2y ago
    > When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why. If you can find clean water in 30 years, it may be because reasonable judges were not required to defer to the environmental science of the Trump EPA. Chevron was imposed in the first place to help the Reagan EPA narrow environmental regulations. In any case the vast majority of judges will probably keep deferring to the regulators in most cases. They aren't forbidden to, they're just no longer required to.
  • sleight42 2y ago
    Why stop at drinking water? If it's not codified in legislation, it will now be fair game for corporate America to exploit. Up until now, companies had to cannibalize their customers when they could no longer find legal ways to grow. This will be enshittification like we've never seen. Instead of cannibalizing their customers, corporations will be able to cannibalize and exploit everything else that isn't explicitly nailed down in legislation. In essence, this is likely the next Citizens United: another massive power grab for corporate America, the richest, at the expense of the people who populate the country.
  • xray2 2y ago
    Lol it’s going to take 30 years to take effect? Delusional take.
  • drrskino 2y ago
    The people trying to downplay this being a brazen partisan ploy at deregulation are not doing a very good job.
• eli 2y ago
  It’s a bit insulting to pretend that we still have a functional legislative body capable of passing such a law. And the court could simply invent more utter nonsense to toss it out again.
  • goodluckchuck 2y ago
    Congressional incompetence is partially an act. They spend most of the year deflecting and complaining that they can’t get anything done, then in a burst here and there, they kick out a multitude of new laws. There’s a substantial level of political theater. Neither side wants to tell their base that they’re wrong. It’s easier to say that the other side is blocking them and golly gee I’m doing everything I can.
• diebeforei485 2y ago
  > Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Actually they can't. They can only pass legislation that involves interstate commerce or spending. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10787 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10787
  • cryptonector 2y ago
    And foreign trade. And navigable waters. And... Oh, and the commerce clause has been read to mean literally anything.
• camgunz 2y ago
  This is exactly the argument the dissent made: we've had Chevron for 80 years; if Congress was ever unhappy about it, they could have done something about it.
• cchance 2y ago
  Cool but it sure feels like "SETTLED LAW" doesnt mean shit anymore.
• fredophile 2y ago
  > Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. What would such a law look like? Let's pretend we're in congress and want to pass a law limiting pollution in lakes and rivers. One option would be to have a bunch of experts tell us what we should explicitly ban and write those into the law. This option would mean we need to revisit the law every few years as the science changes and new harmful chemicals are developed or identified. If instead we want the agency to be able to adapt to new situations, how do we word it in a way that won't be overturned? Congress is in charge of legislating. When does writing rules for what is and isn't pollution cross the line to legislating? Can congress turn any of that power over to executive branch agencies without a separation of powers argument coming up? I have some views on this supreme court and believe they're driven by ideology and not a consistent legal framework. Even if you believe they are completely impartial how would you protect these laws against a future court that may not be?
  • anticensor 2y ago
    Easy, like we do in Europe, by amending the constitution to explicitly allow the Congress to statutorily authorise administrative regulations within the bounds as delegated by the statute.
• hedora 2y ago
  How can congress do this if the Supreme Court is going to repeatedly make retroactive changes to what the laws that congress passes mean? For 40 years, legislation was drafted under the assumption Chevron deference was going to be used to interpret the text of the bills. Now, all of those laws mean something other than what the authors intended. If this was software, it'd be the equivalent of changing post-K&R C language semantics in a backwards incompatible way, and just saying "Well, if programmers care that industrial control systems are literally burning factories to the ground, they can just fix all the software that was written since 1984. Also, moving forward, we reserve the right to keep making intentionally-breaking changes to the compiler, so during the rewrite, they should take future planned-but-currently-secret semantic changes into account."