Posted on 06/23/2024 3:28:25 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The high court tends to release all its decisions for a term by the end of June, and only several days remain in the month.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to release a number of significant rulings in the coming week, including ones relating to whether former President Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity for his activities as president; obstruction charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach; social media laws; and the power of federal agencies.
The high court tends to release all of its decisions for a term by the end of June, and only several days remain in the month. The justices have yet to release 14 cases for the term, which started in October 2023.
The Supreme Court will rule on a 40-year doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. The precedent dictates that courts should defer to executive branch agencies’ expertise when it comes to interpreting laws when Congress’s intent in passing the law is unclear.
Under the 1984 doctrine, U.S. courts gave great leeway to agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the powers delegated to them by Congress to administer the law.
Story continues below advertisement
Two small fishing companies have challenged that precedent, claiming that paying for a monitor on a herring boat required by the National Marine Fisheries Service amounted to onerous regulation. As the case illustrates, the ruling will affect not only the EPA and the SEC but also myriad other federal agencies.
In oral arguments earlier this year, the justices appeared divided over a bid to further limit the regulatory powers of federal agencies in a dispute involving the government-run program to monitor for overfishing of herring off New England’s coast...
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
You can also use this proxy site, another FReeper found:
Unless they stretch this into July, this is going to be a busy week.
Do the USSC Justices break for a time in Summer after they issue these final 14 rulings? If so, I would think they would rather get out of Dodge especially if they can predict varied loud responses to their rulings. Thoughts on them extending into June or past President Trumps sentencing in NY?
The Chevron Doctrine should be BANNED. Anything the fed wants to do wrt rules, regulations - whatever, they ought make Congress codify it then. Stop it with these drastic administrative interpretations
Indeed they do. June 30th is the final Day to issue Rulings.
Like public school teachers they are barely able to wait to get the heck out of town and go on vacation.
They are cowards who hate to do the difficult job they are privileged to do. The decisions require courage and respect for precedent and legal history.
Few are up to that.
According to reports, there are 15 cases still pending. See https://www.wane.com/top-stories/whats-left-for-the-supreme-court-to-decide-heres-the-list/
No. The Supreme Court can take as long as they like to issue its decisions. While it is the case that, typically, the Court issues all of its extant decisions, by the end of June, there is no "rule" that requires it to do so. Indeed, as recently as 2020, I believe, it was, the Court issued its final decisions in July.
I suspect, though, that the Court will issue all of its remaining decisions by the end of the month and perhaps even by the end of this new week (i.e., Friday, the 29th). With there being essentially 12 cases still outstanding (of the 14 mentioned in this article, there are four -- that is, two sets of two -- that are likely to be consolidated and issued in one opinion), getting all of those out in the coming weeks doesn't seem too terribly daunting, based on past experience.
The Trump immunity case may be something of an outlier, however, in this regard.
The cynic in me says 6-3 in favor of the Adminstrative State being able to dictate laws to the rest of us. Congress should wake up to the fact that they are now or are on the cusp of being irrelevant and powerless.
They have gone into July at least once.
They can change their internal rules when they wish to.
The precedent dictates that courts should defer to executive branch agencies’ expertise when it comes to interpreting laws when Congress’s intent in passing the law is unclear.
Why is the law unclear. Because they’re written by staffers, lobbyists and special interests so that selective investigation and prosecution can provide them with protectio from getting in trouble.
“Attorney General Merrick Garland this month suggested in a congressional hearing that he would be prepared to drop cases for Jan. 6 defendants who were charged under that statute.
“We respect the Supreme Court. Whatever the court rules, we will act appropriately,” Mr. Garland said in response to a question from a Republican lawmaker.”
Like hell he will. Biden already ignored the SC ruling regarding student debt relief. What’s to stop Garland from ignoring a ruling?
I hate so much the anti small “r” Republican spectacle of the pronouncements of these philosopher kings this time of year
"The Supreme Court will rule on a 40-year doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. The precedent dictates that courts should defer to executive branch agencies’ expertise when it comes to interpreting laws when Congress’s intent in passing the law is unclear."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
When Congress makes unclear laws, ordinary citizen voters need to primary them in the next election. The country doesn't want crook career lawmakers with deliberately poor writing skills. (Remember Pelosi's 4,155 page constitutionally indefensible spending bill that she gave to President Trump? That's what you call lawfare.)
As mentioned elsewhere about the misguided Supreme Court, whatever the law schools are teaching about the federal government, it's evidently not the federal government's constitutionally very limited powers as constitutional drafters had intended for those powers to be understood.
Let's pick on one of the early executive branch agencies that people might remember as HEW (health, education and welfare) to critique how justices are now thinking, evidenced by the Chevron doctrine.
The glaring constitutional problem with depression era HEW was that the remedies of establishing constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies for the nations health, education and welfare needs at the time are unconstitutional because they are all state power issues.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
"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, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
In other words, the only practical skills that constitutional drafters expected federal lawmakers to have to perform their few, constitutionally enumerated duties, which post-FDR era institutionally indoctrinated justices have evidently lost sight of, was to at least be proficient in military organization and have enough money management skills to find the most economical way to run the military and deliver the mail.
Since Congress has repeatedly proven that it is an enemy of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" Congress in November, supporting hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
Chevron was decided under the false premise that a government bureaucrat, who lacked the skills to get a real job in the private sector, has more expertise to interpret a law than a whole bank of real experts.
EC
You nailed it. Reigning in administrative power is the most important thing the court can do. Th model today is for congress to write vague and ambiguous legislation counting on the agencies to literally write unpopular laws with absolutely no accountability. This is the rule making process. Many of these rules carry criminal penalties. Under Chevron the courts just have to let it happen with little review authority. It is an unconstitutional delegation of powers.
Instead of addressing complicated issues, and thus writing complicated laws to fix them, the lazy (and unConstitutional) Congress simply creates a new agency.
Clean air, clean water, securities, finance, nuclear, education … the list of agencies goes on and on. Every little facet of our lives is regulated by some agency or other.
But I suspect the Congressional obsession with agencies is also the birthplace of the Deep State. Agencies require bureaucrats, lots of them. Millions of them, these days.
This action by the Supremes could, conceivably, crack the shell of the Deep State and start us on the herculean task of flushing out layer upon layer of protected, faceless Washington bureaucracy.
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.