4 ms·

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 governmen

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.
  - imchillyb 2y ago
    > ...that the court decided... You've just touched upon why this hasn't worked in the past. With Chevron the interpretation was left up to the agency, and courts never got to decide anything. Without Chevron, the courts will now be able to do exactly what you're suggesting. You're _actually_ in favor of disabling Chevron, which the SC just did.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    Well, no, they couldn't, that's the whole point of this. Under Chevron doctrine, the courts were deferring to the agency's own interpretation of the law they were testing that agency's actions against, and not applying their own "reasonable" interpretation of the law at all. Reversing Chevron restores the court's responsibility to engage in that interpretation on their own part.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  a mystery to me It's ably explained in Roberts' opinion. In short, Congress often left the fine details to the agencies, not least because the laws were often drafted within those same agencies. Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (which sets out rules for for how agencies make rules, eg requiring consultations, publications of proposed rules, public comment periods thereon etc.).
  - rhaksw 2y ago
    > Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work. > in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA, "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those who are the object of regulatory enforcement can and do bring their objections to courts. Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
      - rhaksw 2y ago
        > I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those both fall under the executive branch. Plus, Chevron deference was about the court's actions, not prosecutors'. > Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on. That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people, whereas Congress is. Keep in mind that the fisheries regulation in question on this case was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
- freejazz 2y ago
  > binding upon the public with no judicial oversight What on earth are you talking about?
  - rhaksw 2y ago
    He's probably referring to Administrative Law Justices (ALJs), who are part of the executive, not the judiciary.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      But they do have judicial oversight. It's a really bizarre response in the context of this thread.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        They do now. Before Chevron was reversed, the stuff that appeared to be judicial oversight was being done by the agencies themselves, not by the judiciary.
        freejazz 2y ago
        That's not true at all.
        Gormo 2y ago
        That is literally what Chevron doctrine is.
        freejazz 2y ago
        In part, yes. But it's certainly not the whole of the issue and you are purposefully misrepresenting the nature of litigation here.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    I'm not sure what was ambiguous about my initial phrasing, but to elaborate for the sake of clarity, I'm talking about the reversal of Chevron doctrine (i.e. the topic of this thread) -- under this doctrine, the federal courts had delegated interpretation of the statutes under which administrative agencies operate to those agencies themselves. This created a state of affairs in which agencies were indeed making rules that were binding upon the public, and doing so without the courts exercising oversight on their own part to determine whether those rules were consistent with the prevailing statute law. Now that Chevron doctrine has been reversed, when agencies engage in novel rulemaking that expands the scope of their authority, it will be up to the courts, not the agency itself, to decide whether that expansion of authority is consistent with current prevailing law.
sanktanglia 2y ago
at least well be able to legally bribe our way to the front of the line as long as we dont admit its a bribe

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.
- imchillyb 2y ago
  > ...that the court decided... You've just touched upon why this hasn't worked in the past. With Chevron the interpretation was left up to the agency, and courts never got to decide anything. Without Chevron, the courts will now be able to do exactly what you're suggesting. You're _actually_ in favor of disabling Chevron, which the SC just did.
- Gormo 2y ago
  Well, no, they couldn't, that's the whole point of this. Under Chevron doctrine, the courts were deferring to the agency's own interpretation of the law they were testing that agency's actions against, and not applying their own "reasonable" interpretation of the law at all. Reversing Chevron restores the court's responsibility to engage in that interpretation on their own part.
anigbrowl 2y ago
a mystery to me It's ably explained in Roberts' opinion. In short, Congress often left the fine details to the agencies, not least because the laws were often drafted within those same agencies. Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (which sets out rules for for how agencies make rules, eg requiring consultations, publications of proposed rules, public comment periods thereon etc.).
- rhaksw 2y ago
  > Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work. > in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA, "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those who are the object of regulatory enforcement can and do bring their objections to courts. Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
    - rhaksw 2y ago
      > I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those both fall under the executive branch. Plus, Chevron deference was about the court's actions, not prosecutors'. > Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on. That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people, whereas Congress is. Keep in mind that the fisheries regulation in question on this case was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
freejazz 2y ago
> binding upon the public with no judicial oversight What on earth are you talking about?
- rhaksw 2y ago
  He's probably referring to Administrative Law Justices (ALJs), who are part of the executive, not the judiciary.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    But they do have judicial oversight. It's a really bizarre response in the context of this thread.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      They do now. Before Chevron was reversed, the stuff that appeared to be judicial oversight was being done by the agencies themselves, not by the judiciary.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        That's not true at all.
        Gormo 2y ago
        That is literally what Chevron doctrine is.
        freejazz 2y ago
        In part, yes. But it's certainly not the whole of the issue and you are purposefully misrepresenting the nature of litigation here.
- Gormo 2y ago
  I'm not sure what was ambiguous about my initial phrasing, but to elaborate for the sake of clarity, I'm talking about the reversal of Chevron doctrine (i.e. the topic of this thread) -- under this doctrine, the federal courts had delegated interpretation of the statutes under which administrative agencies operate to those agencies themselves. This created a state of affairs in which agencies were indeed making rules that were binding upon the public, and doing so without the courts exercising oversight on their own part to determine whether those rules were consistent with the prevailing statute law. Now that Chevron doctrine has been reversed, when agencies engage in novel rulemaking that expands the scope of their authority, it will be up to the courts, not the agency itself, to decide whether that expansion of authority is consistent with current prevailing law.

sanktanglia 2y ago

at least well be able to legally bribe our way to the front of the line as long as we dont admit its a bribe