3 ms·
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 "rea
by 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 agoWell, 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.