Posted on 05/09/2023 7:22:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The Chevron Doctrine has granted far too much power to the administrative state.
In 1984, the Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council created what has come to be known as Chevron deference, also referred to as the Chevron Doctrine. In a nutshell, the landmark ruling, which has been cited in thousands of subsequent cases, gave federal agencies unprecedented power to interpret and administer (as they saw fit) ambiguous language in laws that fall under their purview.
Over the years, the Chevron Doctrine has been abused by several executive agencies, leading to calls for its overruling.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted to hear a case in its upcoming term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which could result in the abolishment of the Chevron Doctrine.
In short, the case calls into question whether or not the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can force fishing companies to pay the salaries of NMFS employees who are allowed by law to monitor fishing vessels while they are at sea.
Specifically, the case revolves around a particular provision in the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act, which allows NMFS to “prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery.”
NMFS argues that the provision allows the agency to exercise ample authority over fishing companies, so much so that the agency can even force small fishing companies to foot the bill for government monitors in practically any and all circumstances.
On the other hand, four family-owned-and-operated fishing companies are challenging NMFS, claiming the agency has wildly overstepped its bounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Maybe this could set a precedent.
It’s a tax.
It’s a shakedown.
“Maybe this could set a precedent.”
I’m tired of getting my hopes up.
But in my dreams, at least, the Supreme Court would simply say something like “If you want to mandate electric cars, or outlaw gas stoves, what prevents you from going to Congress for authorization to do such?”
(ideally, the 10th Amendment would prevent them, but even so, making the feds go to Congress would be a HUGE STEP forward at this stage)
1) Chevron Deference was originally only for departmental regulations implementing congressional statutes, not for re-interpreting criminal laws.
2) Chevron Deference is an important concept that prevents every single little rule from being litigated, which would paralyze the courts and our economy.
3) Chevron Deference has been way over-interpreted by the lower courts over the years, and needs to be reigned in and more narrowly defined.
4) Chevron Deference does not need to be abandoned altogether.
Agreed. Chevron came to be because judges got tired of supervising agencies. But once ensconced as a legal doctrine, agencies used it to do things that went way beyond reasonable interpretations.
Reading your listed items 1-3 tells me we should ABANDON Chevron Doctrine 100%!
If the law is so poorly written that complete enforcement of said law is up to the determination of whoever is in charge that week, then it is a bad law and should be litigated.
If such litigation slows the economy or paralyzes the courts, all the better for America to SUFFER from the works of the idiots whom they place in Congress and the White House!
The sooner people start feeling the pains of their stupid elections, the sooner people will start voting for people other than by name recognition, or if they have “cute tits”, or with the “I would sleep with him” thought processes!! Stupidity SHOULD HURT...especially voting stupidity!
Wow. You’d think this would be a no brainer...it’s a tax and only congress can approve that.
The alphabet agencies have been out of control since the Depression.
The problem is that the actual statues would become 1,000 times longer than they already are, and would have to be updated as technology or practices change in the industry, etc.
It's just unworkable, which is why congress authorizes departments to promulgate rules to implement statutes.
It's just that the pendulum has swung way too far towards allowing departments to make up practically any rules they wish, and courts granting them deference.
What needs to be abandoned is that government agencies can just create rules and they come into effect after a waiting period.
New regulations should be submitted to Congress for their approval. The constitution only gives congress the ability to make laws.
For those who say this is too complicated, remember that for the first 150 years of this country the average American only ever interacted with one federal agency: the post office. We don’t need layers of regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats.
"SCOTUS should put the Chevron Doctrine on the ash heap of history"
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Non-FR)
Regarding so-called Supreme Court doctrine tests, what the post-FDR era Supreme Court is wrongly neglecting to do with respect to cases testing the federal government's constitutionally limited powers is to first check if there's a constitutional clause that reasonably justifies a federal law or regulation in the first place.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, what we're seeing with respect to the misguided Supreme Court was warned about as early as 1803.
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorized acts of government may be drawn into prescedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
The problem imo is that institutionally indoctrinated judges are still getting the wires crossed between the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and common law imo.
In fact, the Constitution's 1st numbered clause, Article I, Section 1, evidently a good place to hide that clause from Supreme Court justices, makes it clear that ALL federal legislative / regulatory powers are vested in the popularly elected Congress, not constitutionally undefined, so-called "federal regulatory agencies" run by non-elected bureaucrats.
"Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives [and IRS and EPA, etc.]."
Consider that post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers discovered that by establishing constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies run by non-popularly elected bureaucrats that they could avoid taking responsibility for the legislative powers that voters trusted them with.
In other words, constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies wrongly helped to foster the emergence of career lawmakers imo.
This is especially a problem when Congress lets federal bureaucrats get away with stealing state powers to do Congress's dirty legislative work for them.
The biggest problem with state and federal regulatory agencies is that they weaken the constitutionally enumerated voting power of ordinary qualified citizen voters imo.
The bottom line is that all Democratic and Republican patriots who support Trump need to "reset" the unconstitutionally big state and federal governments by primarying ALL incumbent state and federal government leaders in 2024 elections since they have all shown that they're not willing to stand up to condemn unconstitutional government policies imo.
In fact, while I support Trump, regular readers of Free Republic can probably do a better job of endorsing MAGA candidates for office than Trump can.
The definition of insanity is reelecting your beloved, state and federal career lawmakers and executives over and over again, expecting different results every time.
Thanks for that reply. That covered the situation very well.
This is why the left is pulling out all the stops to remove Thomas, By Any Means Necessary. They know he’s very likely going to be assigned the written opinion, and he will DESTROY The Administrative State.
Chevron deference is thoroughly unconstitutional.
Chevron encouraged congress to write vague laws. “As the secretary shall direct” should be anathema in a Constitutional republic.
I agree in principal, but it's also very messy to legislate down to every little minutiae of detail.
It is going to be very difficult if not impossible in this day and age to put the Chevron Deference toothpaste back in that particular tube. The best we can hope for is to minimize the spillage on the countertop.
I hope Thomas lives long enough to overturn Wickard v. Filburn.
Dobbs.
In comparison, reversing Chevron is easy.
“All legislative powers herein granted . . . “
If it is “too messy,” then don’t legislate it at all.
Sounds like a law. Legislators who are subject to voters should work this out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.