3 ms·

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 t

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.
    - BurningFrog 2y ago
      This article describes the history of how the 1984 decision took a life of its own: https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine > No one expected the Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would become a landmark of federal administrative law, least of all its author.

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.
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    This article describes the history of how the 1984 decision took a life of its own: https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine > No one expected the Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would become a landmark of federal administrative law, least of all its author.