4 ms·

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 un

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?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  If a law could be challenged, but a regulation based on that law can't be challenged, then that's a problem and we should get rid of that specific issue. But that's not the main point of Chevron and doesn't require overturning the entire thing.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Can you cite any case that proves this bizarre interpretation? Has the CBP ever been challenged on its practices, and have the case rest on Chevron deference? As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
- plorg 2y ago
  Chevron deference has little to nothing to do with constitutionality. It is a principle that says when Congress makes (ambiguous) laws and executive bodies interpret them according to their best judgment (having come to that judgment through an orderly and open process) the judiciary will defer to that executive body's judgment that they are following congressional intent. If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.
cvoss 2y ago
Right. Chevron was about letting agencies help interpret ambiguous statutes that delegate authority from Congress to an agency. But by definition, Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have. In particular, Congress doesn't have the authority to transgress the Constitution. So there's no question of whether the statute permits the agency to transgress the Constitution. It never does and never can. Even if the law said "Congress authorizes the CBP to violate the Constitutition," the agency would still not be authorized to violate the Constitution.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  This suggests that overturning Chevron will not have any meaningful effect on CBP policies. They are already overtly illegal with no consequences.

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?
Dylan16807 2y ago
If a law could be challenged, but a regulation based on that law can't be challenged, then that's a problem and we should get rid of that specific issue. But that's not the main point of Chevron and doesn't require overturning the entire thing.
tsimionescu 2y ago
Can you cite any case that proves this bizarre interpretation? Has the CBP ever been challenged on its practices, and have the case rest on Chevron deference? As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
plorg 2y ago
Chevron deference has little to nothing to do with constitutionality. It is a principle that says when Congress makes (ambiguous) laws and executive bodies interpret them according to their best judgment (having come to that judgment through an orderly and open process) the judiciary will defer to that executive body's judgment that they are following congressional intent. If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.

cvoss 2y ago

Right. Chevron was about letting agencies help interpret ambiguous statutes that delegate authority from Congress to an agency. But by definition, Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have. In particular, Congress doesn't have the authority to transgress the Constitution. So there's no question of whether the statute permits the agency to transgress the Constitution. It never does and never can. Even if the law said "Congress authorizes the CBP to violate the Constitutition," the agency would still not be authorized to violate the Constitution.

rootusrootus 2y ago
This suggests that overturning Chevron will not have any meaningful effect on CBP policies. They are already overtly illegal with no consequences.