Posted on 01/17/2024 9:01:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in two related cases challenging a 40-year-old precedent that requires courts to defer to the judgment of federal agencies in administrative law cases. At the end of three-and-a-half hours of arguments, a majority seemed disposed to overturn Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, and consign the so-called "Chevron deference" principle to the compost heap of terrible Supreme Court precedents.
Ever since the creation of the administrative state during the administration of our first socialist president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, federal agencies have assumed the authority to interpret federal statutes pretty much as they please. This became legal precedent in 1984 with the Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. The decision reads, in part:
When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones ....
— Chevron, 467 U.S. at 866
Where this decision falls short is the assumption that agencies base their decisions on "wisdom" rather than the raw acquisition of power, and that they are any more responsive to a "constituency" than a federal judge.
Chevron sets up a two-stage test. If the law permits an action, the agency has carte blanche to do whatever it wants. If the law is ambiguous, the courts can review the agency's decision to determine if the resulting regulation was a possible way to go about enforcing the law. If so, the courts lose their ability to interfere.
While rule by "philosopher kings" or Old Testament judges may sound brilliant to your typical statist, the reality is much uglier.
The two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. vs. Department of Commerce that started this Supreme Court argument are prime examples of the danger Chevron poses to a free society.
In 1972, Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, "to respond to the threat of overfishing and to promote conservation.” As part of that law, eight regional fisheries councils were created. Each of those councils, which is a business association, is charged with producing a fisheries management plan. Under the plan created for New England herring fisheries, half of all fishing trips had to carry a federal monitor. Originally, all the observers were employed by the federal government. Somehow, the National Marine Fisheries Service managed to lose money from its budget as the rest of the federal government porked up. In 2020, the management plan required the fishing boats to pay for monitors reporting to the federal government. The cost was over $700. Many fisheries complained that this additional expense resulted in zero profit or even a loss for a day's fishing.
Congress didn't authorize billing private fishing companies to pay for federal monitors. But the Department of Commerce interpreted the requirement that it may “require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery,” to mean that half the fishing boats had to carry deadweight that they paid for.
Two of the companies sued. This brings us to the pernicious nature of Chevron. The district court and appeals court said, "Well, the law is ambiguous, and making those swine pay for their monitors is one way of doing it; sounds good to me, and what time is the limo picking us up for lunch?" in essence, there was no interest in the injustice of taxing private fishermen to pay to do the government's job.
RedState and Chevron Deference
SCOTUS Grants Review of Case That Will Gut the Federal Bureaucracy
The Chevron Doctrine: Will the Supreme Court's Ruling Protect Liberty?
US Supreme Court May Be About to Dramatically Scale Back Federal Regulatory Powers
When things go pear-shaped for progressive causes, like fiat rule by unelected bureaucrats, my go-to source is the Jack-Russell-on-meth who covers the Supreme Court for Slate...if Slate can be said to cover anything...and that would be Mark Joseph Stern. This is from The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
...
The remaining conservative justices were less dogmatic but made little effort to conceal their distaste for Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett played it straight at first, asking real questions that hinted at an understanding of the mess that’ll flow from Chevron’s demise. But by the end of arguments, both were hounding Prelogar with telltale complaints about the ostensibly arbitrary and power-drunk executive branch crushing the rule of law. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have gone on the record against Chevron, were only a bit subtler than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The writing’s on the wall of the marble palace, despite the liberals’ fierce fight.
Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.
He also explains how the Supreme Court opting for liberty and due process is a bad thing. If the courts are going to monitor what the agencies are doing, then the agencies might not do anything.
Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
A decision is expected in June, and I'll be off work for a month, getting drunk on liberal tears.
I wants my democracy back
bttt
The point is Chevron is the result of congressional abrogation of responsibilities, whether intended (corruption) or not (incompetence).
If the Supremes kick Chevron to the curb, a more Constitutionally-aware House Speaker like Mike Johnson might just restore the balance our Founding Fathers knew was critical.
Sorry. I didn't read the thread through to the end. Said the same thing - I just used too many words, (I've been reading Russian authors so I've gotten quite wordy).
USSC also said the ‘forgiveness’ of students loans was not legal, but Biden continues like USSC does NOT exist.
Man there sure were a lot of awful decisions reached by the SCOTUS in the 70s and 80s. Overturning them is one of the big keys to restoring the republic.
I have a hard time believing Roberts will allow the Court to dismantle the administrative state. I’m not sure how, but I expect some narrow ruling, using pretzel logic, that applies only to the fishing industry.
Just another example of why “stare decisis” and over-reliance upon precedent-setting cases has been a disaster. It’s just stupid. Why would you ever want to compound a serious judicial error by locking it in (stare decisis) and then building an ever-shakier legal house of cards upon that flawed foundation (precedent)? To do that is to propagate error through subsequent decisions, which just causes the error to grow and spread, causing ever more damage.
I understand the general need for consistency, and the ability to know that a past ruling can be relied upon in the future, but when a case is brought before a court that challenges the foundation for an existing law, EVERY court should prioritize the original intent of the legislators, or where a constitutional question is at issue, the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, over lazy reliance upon case law.
If some court somewhere had decided that 2+2=5, based upon some lawyer’s “novel” reasoning, and later related cases were decided in favor of that interpretation, upholding it and maybe even expanding it a little further each time, it wouldn’t be surprising to see some much later downstream decision concluding that not only does 2+2=5, but perhaps any two numbers added together equal whatever number one imagines.
We certainly saw that extreme after an activist court “found” a non-existent right to privacy in the Constitution and used it to justify abortion. Over time and subsequent cases, we eventually landed at a woman being able to kill her child at any point in the pregnancy, even after the child was born alive, and for any reason whatsoever. And the miracle it took to stop any further downward slide toward hell and finally end the legal foundation on the federal level for abortion was a court that finally decided to just read the Constitution and forget about precedent or stare decisis.
I am convinced that case law and stare decisis are more often than not the devil’s playthings. The two combined provide a leftist activist court with the perfect tools to corrupt the original intent of legislation and then open the door for later courts to expand the original evil as far as they want to take it. All they have to do is “find” some non-existent principle, as in Roe v. Wade, and then “evolve” the case law over time by pushing a little farther with each subsequent decision, creating a one-way ratchet toward the desired leftist outcome. That would not be possible if later courts examining related cases did their own examination of the relevant legislators’ original intent EVERY TIME, and gave very little weight to a previous court’s reasoning. In fact, doing so would serve as a quality check on previous decisions. Using my previous example, it would be like actually doing the math to test whether a previous court’s determination that 2+2=5 is correct, instead of taking that court’s word for it. It would be highly likely most courts would discover that it actually equals 4, thereby stopping the 2+2=5 propagation chain dead in its tracks.
OK, dead horse thoroughly beaten. Sorry about the repetitiveness, but the insanity of this legal practice really ticks me off.
40 years, eh?
It’s only taken 50 years to toss RvW back to the states.
Ping for later
In many ways, it works very well for legislators. They relieve themselves of all responsibility "not my fault, the administrators did it" and gain the power to push for mercy in individual cases, with their access to the regulators "see what I did for you!" (Constituent services).
This can if the justices rule constitutionally, change America for the good. This along with the election of DJT, could result in congress being made to govern rather than letting some faceless swamp denizen produce administrative decisions. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work.
Hope this goes the right way.
Just another example of why “stare decisis”...
“hich—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.”
I don’t see the problem.
L
The alphebet federal agencies have no business telling us all how to live
<>We wouldn’t be in this mess if Congress hadn’t gotten lazy and sloughed off law-making to the executive branch.<>
With Chevron in mind, Congress these past 40 years has purposely used the term, “as the secretary shall direct” thousands of times to slough off responsibility to the admin/deep state.
That way, abuse of their constituents is the fault of the exec branch and not Congress.
Post-Chevron, instead of supplanting Congress or the exec branch in the interpretation of vague laws, I hope the Scotus says that vague laws are simply not enforceable.
THAT would cripple the Leftists that infest the exec agencies.
First Chevron.
Then Wickard.
L
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.