Posted on 06/28/2024 9:58:26 AM PDT by 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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If it's not in Article I Section 8, it is not within the government's scope of power. I'd also like it if the court would look at this list carefully, with a skeptical eye towards government overreach.
I suppose it's too much to ask for them to do something to seriously neuter the entire concept of 'sovereign immunity', especially as it is used in reference to law enforcement.
she did have at least one really strong dissent on the court she was on, that gave me some hope for her after reading through it, but she’s been a serious disappointment.
i believe this ruling is one of the most significant positive events of my life. I do not think that is going too far to say. I hope it ushers a tidal wave of lawfare to negate forty years of willful, constraining and unnecessary capricious regulation. At the very least it should slow down invasion into our lives, our cars, our appliances, our land, homes, work by activists in the administration. I can dream a little can’t I?
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.