3 ms·

I guess this is now the established view of the Chevron decision, by being repeated thousands of times. But the actual decision is just that when there is no c

I guess this is now the established view of the Chevron decision, by being repeated thousands of times. But the actual decision is just that when there is no clear rule in the law, the federal agency can no longer unilaterally decide what they want it to be.

lesuorac 2y ago
If congress didn't want the federal agency to have agency then they would've been more specific with the law. Quite literally those agencies can decide what is available for judges to review. > [1] to define the scope of judicial review. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
BobaFloutist 2y ago
When the federal agency hasn't been explicitly given a specific àla cart power by an increasingly disfunctional congress, courts are no longer expected to defer to the expertise of the federal agency when it seems reasonable to the court and seems to reasonably follow the powers congress has enumerated. eta: I like to think of it in terms of "implied powers". So, the previous standard was that if Congress says the police are allowed to fine people for speeding, the courts should probably assume that the police are allowed to measure people's speed. Now congress is expected to explicitly state everything the police are allowed to do, e.g. congress has to say The city is allowed to set speed limits. Speed limits are a maximum speed you are allowed to go. If you go faster than the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Police are allowed to measure your speed. Police are allowed to record your speed. Police are allow to compare their measured recording of your speed to the speed limit, to determine whether or not you were speeding. If police determine that you were speeding, they are allowed to fine you. The police are allowed to fine you greater amounts if you break the speed limit by greater quantities If the police fine you, they are allowed to take money from you If the police fine you, and you don't pay it, you are breaking the law. Previously if they said "The city can, at their discretion, manage speeds for the safety of all concerned, and use the police for enforcement", the rest was implied. Now it's not.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  It helps to consider the case that was decided. A federal agency was tasked with monitoring herring fishing. This is done by having an inspector on the boats to see that things are done right. The agency was short on money, so they decided to have each boat pay $700/day for the inspector. Nothing in the law says they can do that. But also, nothing says they can't. By the Chevron rule, since this isn't mentioned in the law, the agency can decide that they have the right to demand money. I think it's hard to claim that, as experts in fishing regulation, the agency is best suited to decide if they should be allowed to take money from those it regulates or not.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    At which point the courts could have left Chevron rule intact, and said "This is not a reasonable extension of your powers." Chevron includes the phrase "when rules they make are reasonable." There was already plenty of room for courts to overturn things at their discretion, Chevron was just saying "If there's no obvious wrong on either side, defer to the agencies."
    - BurningFrog 2y ago
      You know, that makes sense to me as well. It seems courts just haven't done that, for some reason. Anyway, the way the Supreme Court works is that cases make their way all the way up there not just to settle a fishing village quibble, but to decide if the underlying law is good or bad. And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades.
      - skissane 2y ago
        > And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades. I wonder for how many decades? Chevron is 40 years old. It was a 6-0 decision (two justices were sick and one recused herself due to conflicts of interest). It was overturning a pro-environment/anti-pollution ruling by the court of appeals below-written by RBG, before she joined the Supreme Court. At the time it was handed down, conservatives cheered it, while liberals and environmentalists condemned it. Obviously at some point the tables turned, conservatives soured on it, liberals decided they liked it after all. But I wonder when in those 40 years was the decisive tipping point, at which the majority of its critics went from being liberals to being conservatives.

lesuorac 2y ago

If congress didn't want the federal agency to have agency then they would've been more specific with the law. Quite literally those agencies can decide what is available for judges to review. > [1] to define the scope of judicial review. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act

BobaFloutist 2y ago

When the federal agency hasn't been explicitly given a specific àla cart power by an increasingly disfunctional congress, courts are no longer expected to defer to the expertise of the federal agency when it seems reasonable to the court and seems to reasonably follow the powers congress has enumerated. eta: I like to think of it in terms of "implied powers". So, the previous standard was that if Congress says the police are allowed to fine people for speeding, the courts should probably assume that the police are allowed to measure people's speed. Now congress is expected to explicitly state everything the police are allowed to do, e.g. congress has to say The city is allowed to set speed limits. Speed limits are a maximum speed you are allowed to go. If you go faster than the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Police are allowed to measure your speed. Police are allowed to record your speed. Police are allow to compare their measured recording of your speed to the speed limit, to determine whether or not you were speeding. If police determine that you were speeding, they are allowed to fine you. The police are allowed to fine you greater amounts if you break the speed limit by greater quantities If the police fine you, they are allowed to take money from you If the police fine you, and you don't pay it, you are breaking the law. Previously if they said "The city can, at their discretion, manage speeds for the safety of all concerned, and use the police for enforcement", the rest was implied. Now it's not.

BurningFrog 2y ago
It helps to consider the case that was decided. A federal agency was tasked with monitoring herring fishing. This is done by having an inspector on the boats to see that things are done right. The agency was short on money, so they decided to have each boat pay $700/day for the inspector. Nothing in the law says they can do that. But also, nothing says they can't. By the Chevron rule, since this isn't mentioned in the law, the agency can decide that they have the right to demand money. I think it's hard to claim that, as experts in fishing regulation, the agency is best suited to decide if they should be allowed to take money from those it regulates or not.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  At which point the courts could have left Chevron rule intact, and said "This is not a reasonable extension of your powers." Chevron includes the phrase "when rules they make are reasonable." There was already plenty of room for courts to overturn things at their discretion, Chevron was just saying "If there's no obvious wrong on either side, defer to the agencies."
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    You know, that makes sense to me as well. It seems courts just haven't done that, for some reason. Anyway, the way the Supreme Court works is that cases make their way all the way up there not just to settle a fishing village quibble, but to decide if the underlying law is good or bad. And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades. I wonder for how many decades? Chevron is 40 years old. It was a 6-0 decision (two justices were sick and one recused herself due to conflicts of interest). It was overturning a pro-environment/anti-pollution ruling by the court of appeals below-written by RBG, before she joined the Supreme Court. At the time it was handed down, conservatives cheered it, while liberals and environmentalists condemned it. Obviously at some point the tables turned, conservatives soured on it, liberals decided they liked it after all. But I wonder when in those 40 years was the decisive tipping point, at which the majority of its critics went from being liberals to being conservatives.