8 ms·

Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say

Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border, because they interpreted the US constitution to mean anyone on US "soil" to mean: not literally on the US "soil", though only once you cross the border. Nice self-serving interpretation. Source: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... - second point above the fold. Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.

biofox 2y ago
This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?
- cyberax 2y ago
  It's not credible.
- pnw 2y ago
  The Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deference-in-the-states/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  The comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?
- akio 2y ago
  Chevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is. You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-administration/ https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > stated intention Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-conservative-attack-on-the-merit-based-civil-service/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
  - falcolas 2y ago
- kogus 2y ago
  George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-court-progressive-executive-branch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c... And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...
cyberax 2y ago
> Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference. > Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever. Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.
- persnicker 2y ago
  It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.
  - ameister14 2y ago
    Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
    - persnicker 2y ago
      Corrected, thank you.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP. USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > It was never allowed to be challenged post 1976. And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame? The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed. > Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953. > Your counterpoint is outrageous. You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.
yongjik 2y ago
That doesn't sound right. Chevron doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want - the court always has the authority to step in and say "Hey, that's unconstitutional," when it is actually unconstitutional.
- admissionsguy 2y ago
  There was a presumption that the government is right, so the application of the law was not impartial.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    That is absolutely not what chevron was. Chevron was essentially the decision that an agency established by congress to make rules for a domain had rulemaking powers for that domain so long as it doesn't go against express congressional decisions.
- persnicker 2y ago
  When Chevron was active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense. In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.
  - jhallenworld 2y ago
    Theoretically maybe, but I find it difficult the believe that a conservative court will do anything to liberalize border policing. More likely they will find/invent some new justification to allow it, possibly requiring even tougher policing.
  - roflyear 2y ago
    > When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. Do you have one source for this? A case where someone tried, or a blog post by a legal expert discussing this?
  - 2y ago
aaronbrethorst 2y ago
I love seeing new accounts pop up that only seem to exist to support specific SCOTUS decisions with misleading claims like this one.
- persnicker 2y ago
  If it's so misleading then explain why.
  - roflyear 2y ago
    There is nothing about Chevron that says an agency can decide when the constitution applies.
  - persnicker 2y ago
    "The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority." Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-insulates-federal-agents-accountability-2022-06-10/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-in... This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. I would imagine it will now be challenged.
    - roflyear 2y ago
      > This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place Respectfully, language like this makes you look very partisan. Of course it could be challenged. How do you think Chevron got thrown out? Because something concerning it was challenged. Still, it doesn't support your claim that Chevron means that an agency can interpret the constitution. That's not at all what Chevron says and it isn't true.
    - ameister14 2y ago
      >This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. That's just not correct.
    - 2y ago
roflyear 2y ago
Can you substantiate this claim? > When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense. Specifically that Chevron enables this - I don't see how Chevron applies here.
rat87 2y ago
No it didn't. This is another nonsense defense of an extreme activist conservative court just like when they decided to take away people's rights to choose solely didn't like Abortion without any reason (Roe vs Wades logic hasn't changed, merely the number of exteemly conservative judges on the court). They don't like regulations so they'll blow up the ways regulations have worked even though it will make a huge mess and overload the already way too busy courts.
pdonis 2y ago
> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them. And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.
aredox 2y ago
Oh, really? So now it is not the case at all? I haven't heard anything from CBP, so we can all guess your "fact" is disingenuous... (And if it were really the case, how long before it is even more enshrined in law?)

biofox 2y ago

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

cyberax 2y ago
It's not credible.
pnw 2y ago
The Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deference-in-the-states/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
The comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?
akio 2y ago
Chevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is. You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-administration/ https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > stated intention Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-conservative-attack-on-the-merit-based-civil-service/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
- falcolas 2y ago
kogus 2y ago
George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-court-progressive-executive-branch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c... And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...

cyberax 2y ago

> Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference. > Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever. Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.

persnicker 2y ago
It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.
- ameister14 2y ago
  Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
  - persnicker 2y ago
    Corrected, thank you.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP. USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > It was never allowed to be challenged post 1976. And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame? The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed. > Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953. > Your counterpoint is outrageous. You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.

yongjik 2y ago

That doesn't sound right. Chevron doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want - the court always has the authority to step in and say "Hey, that's unconstitutional," when it is actually unconstitutional.

admissionsguy 2y ago
There was a presumption that the government is right, so the application of the law was not impartial.
- masklinn 2y ago
  That is absolutely not what chevron was. Chevron was essentially the decision that an agency established by congress to make rules for a domain had rulemaking powers for that domain so long as it doesn't go against express congressional decisions.
persnicker 2y ago
When Chevron was active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense. In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.
- jhallenworld 2y ago
  Theoretically maybe, but I find it difficult the believe that a conservative court will do anything to liberalize border policing. More likely they will find/invent some new justification to allow it, possibly requiring even tougher policing.
- roflyear 2y ago
  > When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. Do you have one source for this? A case where someone tried, or a blog post by a legal expert discussing this?
- 2y ago

aaronbrethorst 2y ago

I love seeing new accounts pop up that only seem to exist to support specific SCOTUS decisions with misleading claims like this one.

persnicker 2y ago
If it's so misleading then explain why.
- roflyear 2y ago
  There is nothing about Chevron that says an agency can decide when the constitution applies.
- persnicker 2y ago
  "The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority." Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-insulates-federal-agents-accountability-2022-06-10/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-in... This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. I would imagine it will now be challenged.
  - roflyear 2y ago
    > This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place Respectfully, language like this makes you look very partisan. Of course it could be challenged. How do you think Chevron got thrown out? Because something concerning it was challenged. Still, it doesn't support your claim that Chevron means that an agency can interpret the constitution. That's not at all what Chevron says and it isn't true.
  - ameister14 2y ago
    >This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. That's just not correct.
  - 2y ago

roflyear 2y ago

Can you substantiate this claim? > When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense. Specifically that Chevron enables this - I don't see how Chevron applies here.

rat87 2y ago

No it didn't. This is another nonsense defense of an extreme activist conservative court just like when they decided to take away people's rights to choose solely didn't like Abortion without any reason (Roe vs Wades logic hasn't changed, merely the number of exteemly conservative judges on the court). They don't like regulations so they'll blow up the ways regulations have worked even though it will make a huge mess and overload the already way too busy courts.

pdonis 2y ago

> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them. And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.

aredox 2y ago

Oh, really? So now it is not the case at all? I haven't heard anything from CBP, so we can all guess your "fact" is disingenuous... (And if it were really the case, how long before it is even more enshrined in law?)