6 ms·

sorry, 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)

by pas 2y ago

sorry, 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 ago
Long 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 ago
  I 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.
  - surfaceofthesun 2y ago
    It seems that congress is much quicker and more willing to correct overreach by the executive branch through legislation compared to overreach by the judiciary — especially at the Supreme Court level.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      LOL. Have you seen the state of congress in the last decade? A rotten dead fish would be quicker to correct about any overreach than the US congress.
      - surfaceofthesun 2y ago
        Yes. I simply meant a relative comparison between the two. Agreed otherwise
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics. That's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that their concern is that regulatory bodies and other executive agencies are standing in the way of personal and corporate profits, and that overturning Chevron means that the courts can now cripple the ability for federal agencies to function by overruling the reasonable interpretations of statute those agencies have been operating under all this time and instead limit them to only the most narrow interpretation of the law. Law that has, for decades now, been being written under the assumption that Chevron exists, and not with the expectation that an adversarial judge will try to undermine the intention of the laws being passed.
    - kolbe 2y ago
      That's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that corrupt, know-nothing political friends use their ability to "interpret a gap" to make sweeping legislation with no accountability and in-house courts to adjudicate on their behalf, then use selective enforcement for de facto bribery in a revolving door of public-private scheme to extort the productive sector of our country, and give to the useless rent seeking politicians and their cronies.
- bonzini 2y ago
  It's worth noting is that at the time the EPA's position was _in favor_ of Chevron, while the agencies right now tend to be a lot less corporation-friendly (hence the need to overturn the precedent, some say). Also worth noting is that the head of the EPA at the time was Anne Gorsuch, mother of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    And Neil Gorsuch concurred in the court's majority opinion!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Long ago Congress passed laws delegating a lot of rulemaking authority to the executive branch […] By "long ago" the delegation was first mentioned (AFAICT) in 1825: > It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. * https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html
- rayiner 2y ago
  This is completely wrong. Chevron is about the Clean Air Act, which required Chevron (the oil company) to get a permit for every pollution “source.” The Reagan EPA interpreted the word “source” in the statute to mean an entire plant, not an individual pollution source (like a smokestack). It was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued that the law requires Chevron to get a permit for every pollution source. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sided with NRDC. But the Supreme Court reversed, ruling in favor of the EPA (and Chevron). The Supreme Court said that the court had to defer to the EPAs interpretation of the word “source,” even if the court thought that wasn’t the best interpretation of the law.

by pas 2y ago

sorry, 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 ago

Long 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 ago
I 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.
- surfaceofthesun 2y ago
  It seems that congress is much quicker and more willing to correct overreach by the executive branch through legislation compared to overreach by the judiciary — especially at the Supreme Court level.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    LOL. Have you seen the state of congress in the last decade? A rotten dead fish would be quicker to correct about any overreach than the US congress.
    - surfaceofthesun 2y ago
      Yes. I simply meant a relative comparison between the two. Agreed otherwise
- autoexec 2y ago
  > The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics. That's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that their concern is that regulatory bodies and other executive agencies are standing in the way of personal and corporate profits, and that overturning Chevron means that the courts can now cripple the ability for federal agencies to function by overruling the reasonable interpretations of statute those agencies have been operating under all this time and instead limit them to only the most narrow interpretation of the law. Law that has, for decades now, been being written under the assumption that Chevron exists, and not with the expectation that an adversarial judge will try to undermine the intention of the laws being passed.
  - kolbe 2y ago
    That's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that corrupt, know-nothing political friends use their ability to "interpret a gap" to make sweeping legislation with no accountability and in-house courts to adjudicate on their behalf, then use selective enforcement for de facto bribery in a revolving door of public-private scheme to extort the productive sector of our country, and give to the useless rent seeking politicians and their cronies.
bonzini 2y ago
It's worth noting is that at the time the EPA's position was _in favor_ of Chevron, while the agencies right now tend to be a lot less corporation-friendly (hence the need to overturn the precedent, some say). Also worth noting is that the head of the EPA at the time was Anne Gorsuch, mother of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  And Neil Gorsuch concurred in the court's majority opinion!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
throw0101c 2y ago
> Long ago Congress passed laws delegating a lot of rulemaking authority to the executive branch […] By "long ago" the delegation was first mentioned (AFAICT) in 1825: > It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. * https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html
rayiner 2y ago
This is completely wrong. Chevron is about the Clean Air Act, which required Chevron (the oil company) to get a permit for every pollution “source.” The Reagan EPA interpreted the word “source” in the statute to mean an entire plant, not an individual pollution source (like a smokestack). It was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued that the law requires Chevron to get a permit for every pollution source. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sided with NRDC. But the Supreme Court reversed, ruling in favor of the EPA (and Chevron). The Supreme Court said that the court had to defer to the EPAs interpretation of the word “source,” even if the court thought that wasn’t the best interpretation of the law.