9 ms·
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 Marb
by 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 agoCan 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 agoi 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 agoIt’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.
- bumby 2y agoIt becomes a somewhat circular argument. Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the court judicial power to interpret law. Therefore, by their own ruling they gave themselves the power to decide what is (or isn’t) constitutional.
- cryptonector 2y ago> Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. The constitution declares itself as supreme law. See the Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The order in which the supreme laws are given is: constitution, statutes, treaties.
- brewdad 2y agoWhich seems like an enormous power grab on the one hand but I can’t really see any other way for them to be a check on the other branches without that power. There needs to be some legal basis to declare a law invalid. The Constitution (with all of its vagueness at times) seems like the better way than simply vibes.
- cryptonector 2y agoThe Supremacy Clause lists the supreme laws in order: constitution, federal statutes, treaties. If there is a conflict among them then it's natural for the courts to resolve that conflict by deferring to the more supreme item on that list, thus if a law violates -say- the right to due process as enshrined in the constitution then that law must be invalid and the courts must rule as much. Marbury is an utterly natural consequence of the Supremacy Clause and Article III (and the context of common law).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not No, it’s to decide cases and controversies [1]. Deciding on constitutionality flows from that. This case, for example, was decided more on the Administrative Procdures Act than on the Constitution. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
- kelnos 2y agoIf they believe Chevron is unconstitutional, sure. And there's certainly an argument for it on separation-of-powers grounds.
- colde 2y agoThey don't believe it's unconstitutional. They believe it conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act from 1946. Something that they apparently believe the unanimous decision in Chevron from 1984 got wrong.
- jimnotgym 2y agoI know little about US law, but I thought one of the priciples of common law is that once a precedent is set then it is set forever unless changed by statute? Allowing a court to change precedents undermines the whole concept of common law doesn't it?
- SllX 2y agoThis is stare (“starry”) decisis, and while it is absolute vertically, it is less so horizontally. Basically the court can decide that it got it wrong before, but the 9th Circuit is bound by a higher court’s precedents (SCOTUS in this case): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
- cryptonector 2y agoWith the caveat that the appeals courts set lots of precedents where the cases never reach the Supreme Court, in which cases the appeals courts are as bound by their precedents as the SCOTUS is by its precedents (i.e., not really).
- SllX 2y agoYep! And District Courts are bound by the Appellate Circuit Courts above them.
- cryptonector 2y agoThe court will be very zealous of its power (from 1803, in Marbury v. Madison) to decide that laws are unconstitutional, so yes, if the court things a statutory codification of Chevron is unconstitutional, they will so rule. However it's also very unlikely that Congress will pass Chevron into law, and the text they might write might be narrow enough to pass constitutional muster, so until then this is a purely academic question.
- mullingitover 2y agoCouldn't congress explicitly strip the courts of their authority to review the Chevron-codifying law in the text of that same law?
- cryptonector 2y agoCongress can define the court's jurisdiction, but that's a very broad tool. By and large Congress doesn't do that. I suspect that it would be more practical to pack the court.
- mullingitover 2y agoWhy is the potentially decades-long process of packing the court easier than inserting a section in a bill that says “btw, judges can’t review this specific law because it’s specifically written to revoke your recent power grab.”
- pas 2y agosorry, can someone explain this to someone who gave up on the article at the first bullet point, nor had enough sleep (and so is too lazy to look up everything) thanks!
- kelnos 2y agoLong ago Congress passed laws delegating a lot of rulemaking authority to the executive branch, the idea being that Congresspersons and their staff aren't deep-knowledge experts in most fields, and a lot of detailed rulemaking is best left to non-partisan career government employees (which, however, are usually guided by partisan political appointees, unfortunately). This is potentially dicey where the constitution is concerned: one of the foundational principles of the US constitution is separation of powers, and giving the executive branch what is essentially legislative power is maybe not in line with that. But Congress did it anyway, and the SCOTUS has over the years upheld it. There was a landmark court case involving Chevron (the oil company). SCOTUS ruled there saying that the executive branch agencies responsible for rulemaking are experts in their fields, and we should mostly defer to them when their position seems reasonable, and when Congress hasn't passed a law that contradicts what they want to do. Marbury is a much older case, that made precedent the idea that courts have the ability to strike down laws that they believe violate the constitution. The current conservative-leaning SCOTUS is skeptical of what conservatives call the "administrative state" (basically: rulemaking done by the executive branch). They seem to not be a big fan of "Chevron deference", and are fully willing to exercise their Marbury-affirmed power to strike down executive actions that they don't believe are constitutional, or don't believe directly stem from laws Congress has passed.
- wahern 2y agoI think this misses an important distinction. The issue here isn't the extent to which Congress can delegate rule-making authority to executive agencies. Those bounds haven't been moved. The issue is how how much deference courts are to give agencies when deciding when an agency-made rule reasonably adheres to the purpose and function of a statute. In theory the degree of deference shouldn't matter--agencies' retain the same rule-making authority and flexibility as before--but as a matter of process it absolutely does. SCOTUS invented the Chevron doctrine because it believed at the time courts were too quick to second-guess the logic behind agency rule making, and in doing so unnecessarily and improperly inserting themselves into technical debates as well as broader political debates. IOW, the court was primarily concerned with people using the courts to subvert executive prerogatives and electoral politics. The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics. Then and now, by moving the threshold for when courts can second-guess federal agencies, it's effectively altering the rights and responsibilities between Congress and the President, as well as between those two institutions and the electorate more broadly.
- anon373839 2y agoI suppose Congress could use its power under Article III’s Exceptions Clause to strip the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of jurisdiction to hear cases challenging an agency’s adherence to its enabling statute. Courts would still always be able to hear constitutional challenges, of course.
- freejazz 2y agoAnd wouldn't this court still take this kind of challenge on constitutional grounds? That congress has no power to give legislative authority to an executive agency?
- jtbayly 2y agoI assume so, as they should, since the constitution forbids it. This was the whole point of the separation of powers. If Congress thinks they shouldn’t have to do the work of legislation, then they can all quit and we can elect people who are willing to do the job we elect them to do.
- underlipton 2y agoAnd I suppose that soldiers who are in the middle of combat shouldn't be able to choose where to point their rifles without congressional approval? Do we need a bill for each new weapons system, since their procurement and use won't have been specifically called for in statute? Etc.
- jtbayly 2y agoCongress already decides how much to spend and on what weapons systems for the various branches of the military. Meanwhile, you need to brush up on your civics knowledge. The authority to command the armed forces is directly under the executive, which is why the President is the “Commander in Chief.” In other words, these are not problems, either in the real world way things work (like the EPA has problems now after this decision) or in a constitutional sense.
- babyshake 2y agoIsn't the only reason the Supreme Court would not sustain a law is because it is unconstitutional? And otherwise their only role is to interpret laws? At least that's the way it is supposed to be AFAIK.
- kergonath 2y agoBut that’s not really how it works, is it? The court is more interested in pushing an agenda than playing its role in balancing the other branches of government. It’s obvious in the way they defer to precedent when it suits them and throw it aside when it does not.
- jtbayly 2y agoNevertheless, the constitution does forbid this, and the decision is correct.
- throwup238 2y agoWhere exactly does the constitution forbid “this”?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoNo, the court can also say that two laws are inconsistent. In this case, there is a judicial ruling (Chevron) that has stood for a while, that they are saying is inconsistent with a law (the APA). The constitution is not in this ruling at all. Generally, laws override judicial rulings unless the constitution is in question.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoCan the Supreme Court ever declare two Constitutional clauses to be inconsistent?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI doubt it, but I'm sure they can "interpret" them to consistency.
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoThat seems unlikely to me. Why do you think so? There hasn’t been a successful nondelegatiom challenge in like a hundred years.
- cryptonector 2y agoI gave my reason in the comment you're replying to.
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoBecause they mentioned Marbury? Meh.
- cryptonector 2y agoThey didn't just mention it. The explained that it means that they (the courts) interpret the law. That they decided Raimondo on statutory grounds (specifically the Administrative Procedures Act) doesn't mean that they wouldn't have decided it on constitutional grounds if statutory grounds weren't available. Basically they've left the door open for Congress to fine-tune things a bit, but if they try to enshrine Chevron in law then it's pretty clear that the majority on the court already doesn't think much of it.
- skissane 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. I'm not convinced you are right. If you look at the conservatives on the current SCOTUS, they aren't monolithic. Thomas and Alito are hard conservatives (with Thomas the hardest), [0] and I'd expect they'd likely do as you suggest and strike down any statutory attempt to reintroduce Chevron as unconstitutional. But I'm not sure Roberts would be willing to go along with that. As the most moderate of the conservative justices, he was comfortable striking down Chevron on statutory interpretation grounds, repeating that on constitutional grounds might be going too far for him. And he only has to convince one other conservative to go along with him, and with the support of the liberals he'd have a majority. Kavanaugh is only modestly more conservative than Roberts, so he'd be the most likely candidate. I think, if Roberts was to overturn on constitutional grounds a statutory attempt to reinstate Chevron, he'd prefer to do it in the narrowest way he could – striking down that particular attempt, but leaving open the possibility that Congress could have another go at it. The other thing you have to keep in mind, is ultimately the justices are individuals with their own idiosyncrasies, and they don't always vote the way you'd predict if ideological leanings were the only factor driving their decisions. A good example of that was the Fischer v United States case [1] from the other day, in which SCOTUS sided with January 6 defendants: Jackson joined the conservatives in that, whereas Barrett joined the liberals in dissenting. I suppose Jackson siding with the conservatives was not entirely surprising; as the most moderate of the liberal justices, she is the most likely to join the conservatives in any case. Barrett's dissent was somewhat more surprising, given she's not the most moderate conservative, with Roberts and Kavanaugh siding with the liberals more often than she does. [0] https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideo... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States
- camgunz 2y agoIt's so narrow that it's out of context. The APA does say "all matters of law" but it's in a longer sentence that makes it clear they mean a legal dispute. Roberts et al cram a huge shift of plenary powers through that pinhole. Regardless of what you think about the administrative state, no one can say with a straight face courts will do a good job of this. We don't even have enough judges to manage immigration and family law cases, and now we need people who are legal experts _and_ subject matter experts in all regulatory cases that come before them? I mean, we'll see what courts think after environmental rights groups file thousands of suits (as the majority seems to think they should be doing) after this. Or I mean, a different outcome is that we get EPA court. Article III is very short and doesn't design the federal judiciary. Biden could pretty easily just make the EPA a court with lifetime appointments. What an own goal that would be haha.