Posted on 01/17/2024 2:08:50 PM PST by V_TWIN
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is taking up challenges by commercial fishermen to a fee requirement that could achieve a long-sought goal of business and conservative interests: limiting a wide swath of government regulations.
Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Donald Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.
Lawyers for the fishermen are asking the justices to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power, including on the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
Lower courts used the decision known colloquially as Chevron to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake.
The 1984 decision states that when laws aren’t crystal clear, federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details as long as they come up with a reasonable interpretation. “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in 1984, explaining why they should play a limited role. The court ruled 6-0, with three justices recused.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
The overreach of the fed gov on this is completely obscene.
Because you see, being populated with eco-kooks, that's what the gov is really trying to use it's "interpretative deference" to do: stop all fishing.
So called "Chevron deference" just provides cover for government lawlessness.
Last time commercial fishermen took the US to court, we lost badly. So what looks like a slam dunk, may not be.
Bkmk
Elections have consequences.
Pray for these fishermen, and for their attorneys.
“stop all fishing”
Exactly.....like I said.....it’s obscene.
And Justice Thomas asking “how do we know where the line is” during today’s arguments doesn’t sound too good.
Despite the righteousness of the fishermen's case,the USSC has an easy out. The will cite there is legislative relief available through the Congressional Review Act.
“You’ll have try to ignore the onvious bias in the story.
The overreach of the fed gov on this is completely obscene”
Not surprised, THIS is what really scares them.
I see what he did there.
WTAF? If a law isn't clear, it's the job of judges to clarify it, by hearing whatever facts and expert testimony they need to accomplish that. That's what they get paid for, and paid a lot.
If they can't or won't do this, the law in question should be eliminated, and the legislature can try again. But allowing federal agencies to essentially write the laws governing themselves is completely wrong.
IF they strike it down, then the Washington rule by regulation will be over. It will give Trump the tool he needs to clean Washington out.
It certainly does seem excessive.
The fish are going to get paid for. The buyers are going to make sure they get what they pay for. The IRS is going to check that Uncle Sam gets his cut.
It certainly does seem excessive.
The fish are going to get paid for. The buyers are going to make sure they get what they pay for. The IRS is going to check that Uncle Sam gets his cut.
“Those siding with the federal government include environmental groups, Democratic members of Congress, Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia, and organizations advocating for public health, consumers and civil rights”
IOW ....swamp creatures
I think states should require medical doctor observers to watch over every abortion.
These observers might get paid $700/day and their fees passed on.
It seems unlikely the court would have taken this case, only to reinforce what already exists.
You cannot have separation of powers when executive agencies can make up law as they wish, when they wish.
They are not the legislature,and they are not the judiciary.
Chevron gives them almost unlimited power.
It’s curious that this case comes up at the same time the Davos idiots are proclaiming that farming and fishing are “eco-crimes”.
The legislative branch has seemingly been quite content with the status quo.
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.