SHOCKER: SCOTUS Delivers a Kill Shot to Big Government in the Chevron deference case

PJ Media ^ | 06/28/2024 | Paula Bolyard

[SeekAndFind]

Today, the Supreme Court voted to overrule the so-called Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision. The ruling is a HUGE victory for those who hate the massive power the administrative state has amassed in recent decades. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded: "The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled."

In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say. It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to COVID jabs. 

According to Ballotpedia: 

The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. which concerned disagreement over a change in the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of a permitting provision of the Clean Air Act of 1977. The case established a two-step review approach used by courts to analyze an agency's legal interpretations. Under the review process, courts consider (1) Congress' clear intent in passing a law and (2) (if the court finds ambiguities in the law) whether an agency's rule was reasonably construed and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

[Fledermaus]

Barrett is a lib. She lied to Trump.

[AndyJackson]

More from Gorsuch:

Much more could be said about Chevron’s inconsistency with the APA...For present purposes, the short of it is that continuing to abide Chevron deference would require us to transgress the first lesson of stare decisis—the humility required of judges to recognize that our decisions must yield [pointing out the Chevron is as the majority found utterly inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act].

[Bobbyvotes]

on another case in SCOTUS, this——>

“Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling”.

[AndyJackson]

More:

Sensing how jarringly inconsistent Chevron is with this Court’s many longstanding precedents discussing the nature of the judicial role in disputes over the law’s meaning, the government and dissent struggle for a response.

[PGR88]

I immediately think of Covid-19 — where the CDC cited the 1944 Public Health Services Act, (amended many times since) giving them very general powers “to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States” - to prevent landlords from collecting rents from tenants (later unconstitutionally extended by Biden) for nearly 18 months

Where the hell did the Public Health Services Act say the CDC (which didn’t even exist at the time) have the right to intervene in contracts between landlords and tenants on private property?

[AndyJackson]

And powerfully, Gorsuch writes: Chevron deference undermines all that. It precludes courts from exercising the judicial power vested in them by Article III to say what the law is. It forces judges to abandon the best reading of the law in favor of views of those presently holding the reins of the Executive Branch. It requires judges to change, and change again, their interpretations of the law as and when the government demands. And that transfer of power has exactly the sort of consequences one might expect. Rather than insulate adjudication from power and politics to ensure a fair hearing “without respect to persons” as the federal judicial oath demands, 28 U. S. C. §453, Chevron deference requires courts to “place a finger on the scales of justice in favor of the most powerful of litigants, the federal government.”

Gorsuch fingers the exact problem of the entire construction of the deepstate and deference to it that has been bothering conservatives [a group of people that ACB has now written herself out of] for years.

[Roadrunner383]

“She’s another product of the Federalist Society, which is the right wing of the Uniparty. They need to be shamed, shunned and dismantled.”

So, we’re going to shame and shun Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito? That’s a pretty narrow view of things, I’m guessing nobody passes your purity test.

[AndyJackson]

Still on a roll:

The ancient rule of lenity is still another of Chevron’s victims. Since the founding, American courts have construed ambiguities in penal laws against the government and with lenity toward affected persons.

He just steam rolled over ACBs dissent in the J6 case where the vapid TDS afflicted squish violates exactly this principal in deferring the the DOJ's liberal, e.g. lose, e.g. drug fogged interpretaion of the law the deepstate is using to prorsecute Trump supporters near and far.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article SeekAndFind.

"SHOCKER: SCOTUS Delivers a Kill Shot to Big Government in the Chevron deference case"

---

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The real problem concerning Chevron doctrine is this imo. Constitutionally low-information, post 17th Amendment ratification patriots are unthinkingly reelecting corrupt career lawmakers who establish constitutionally undefined, so-called federal regulatory agencies run by non-popularly elected bureaucrats so that lawmakers don't have to take responsibility for the legislative powers that voters are trusting them with.

What's even worse is that Congress is letting federal regulatory agencies get away with stealing and abusing 10th Amendment-protected state powers to do Congress's dirty legislative work for it.

It's long overdue for Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL of Congress in November, except for patriots like MTG and Gaetz & Company ( and others?), replacing with new lawmakers who respect the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, so that hopeful Trump 47 will not only not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will also support him to quickly finish draining the swamp, especially cleaning up the courts.

Let's not let a misguided Supreme Court get way with merely shaming federal regulatory agencies that probably shouldn't exist in the first place imo.

[Ann Archy]

She is dither a DEMOCRAT OR BEING BLACKMAILED!

[Lazamataz]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

[AndyJackson]

Still reading Gorsuch:

Chevron has turned statutory interpretation into a game of bingo under blindfold, with parties guessing at how many boxes there are and which one their case might ultimately fall in.

[RushingWater]

You are confusing 2 rulings today.

ACB voted with majority in this. She voted against the J6 related decision today. The hyphenated lady voted for the majority in the J6 related case.

[KevinB]

Surprisingly Justice Ketanji Brown sided with majority. Amy Coney Barret sided with the swamp.

I wonder is that was strategic posturing engineered by Roberts in order to create the impression that the Court is not inherently political in nature.

[Bobbyvotes]

Distinct possibility. But of course, the justices will never admit to such posturing.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The administrative state will just ignore it and carry on as usual.

[aquila48]

Or the EPA suddenly declaring CO2 to be a POLLUTANT to be regulated.

[SeekAndFind]

Thanks for your post.

Many people don’t appreciate the IMPACT and IMPLICATIONS of this decision to big government and potential tyranny…

Fundamentally, 40 years ago, an activist Supreme Court determined that a Administrative Agency’s interpretation of any statute that it administers is entitled to judicial deference unless Congress explicitly says otherwise. Which is to say that congressional legislation means whatever the administrative state determines it means, and this could not be legally challenged.

All of the arbitrary, capricious, and medically unsound administrative actions by FDA, CDC, NIH, and other HHS branches during the COVIDcrisis derived their authority from Chevron. This legal precedent has been what has powered the notoriously arbitrary and capricious actions of the EPA in setting the policies which restrict local small farm-oriented animal processing activities and advantage large centralized slaughterhouses.

This is the legal precedent that has powered the federal requirements concerning the use of natural gas for cooking and heating and requirements for battery-powered electric semi-tractors for long-haul trucking. Functionally, this tendency of the courts to grant legal deference to administrative bureaucracies has trickled all the way down to school boards.

But as of today, the dark days of arbitrary, capricious, and unaccountable administrative actions are over. This decision’s consequences will reverberate across the American legal and regulatory landscape for decades.

[PGR88]

You are correct. I was too harsh. Federalist Society has done as much, or more than anyone in the last 40 years helping Republicans battle democrat onslaught on DC on judicial issues.

[zeugma]

This is HUGE. Much, much bigger a deal than almost anyone can say. "Chevron deference" has destroyed entire industries.

Worth reading:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf