Posted on 06/29/2024 10:27:58 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the power of executive agencies by sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent, endangering countless regulations and transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts.
The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited in American law, requires courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts.
The decision is all but certain to prompt challenges to the actions of an array of federal agencies, including those regulating the environment, health care and consumer safety.
The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along ideological lines.
“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to a judicial power grab. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”
Justice Kagan summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move and a sign of profound disagreement. “Courts, in particular this court, will now play a commanding role” in setting national policy, she said.
The court has overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They say that like it's bad thing.
“I think that word they keep using does not mean what they think it means?” - Inigo Montoya
Has anyone seen an analysis of how this might effect the BATF? Or the IRS?
Props to Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who voted to overturn. I hope the NYTimes gives her some credit. Thanks, Joe!
Oh no, the Permanent Imperial Bureaucracy might get its wings clipped a little.
The fascism runs deep at The NY Times.
Next, the Supreme Court needs to invalidate ambiguous statutes.
What it really does is gives power back to those venues where you can get a hearing, the courts who answer to the law and the principles of justice and due process and the legislature which, so the fiction currently goes, answers to the people.
This is a stake through the heart of the progressive agenda which has sought to use unchecked administrative power to advance their favorite causes, you know, like eliminating gas stoves and making waterfront property unuseable for any economic purpose.
“I think that word they keep using does not mean what they think it means?” - William Goldman
The main thing that conservative commentators are saying is that it makes it easier to sue the IRS/BATF/EPA etc. because of the demise of Chevron.
once upon a time, this would have been a major impediment to government operations...
Not today...
Our Communist rulers will skillfully circumvent, negate, or ignore this SCOTUS action just as it has for years...
And that limit our freedoms!
“Justice Kagan summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move and a sign of profound disagreement. “Courts, in particular this court, will now play a commanding role” in setting national policy, she said.”
No, bitch, that will be CONGRESS. The courts will ONLY interpret whether the agencies are following the laws that Congress wrote.
Several years ago, a congressman asked the DOJ for a list of regulations...regulations, not laws, at all government levels that require a prison sentence for violation. The DOJ responded that there were thousands and no way to collate or count them.
In Florida, there are ludicrous fines and prison terms for disturbing or handling certain wildlife, for catching too many or too small of various fish and burning trash. None of these went through the legislature. I’d like to see all of these gone. If the legislature wants to mandate a law, and get it signed, then fine. Do it. But don’t allow some dweeb who never leaves his desk to bankrupt of put people in prison because he has a hard on about the endangered pup-fish.
Does this mean that OSHA can be ignored?
Imperiling! Oh noes. How about removing unlawfully applied rules and regulations put in place at someone’s whim?
When I heard the news I did my happy dance.
It just means that they can not tell you to do one thing in the morning just to turn around and tell you to do the opposite in the afternoon using the same regulation.
Basic tenet of legal contract is any ambiguity always favors the person who did not write the contract.
This does not go that far, but it should.
This is one of the best things to happen to our republic in years. What wonderful news.
How many laws that Congress does Pass are written ambiguously on purpose? Thus Congress can make it mean whatever they want it to mean in collusion with the propaganda media and leftist judges. Ambiguous statutes Also give huge amounts of money to Lawyers, one of the Democrats biggest financial supporters.
In my opinion, just more evidence that Congress shouldn’t write laws to regulate matters on which they are fundamentally ignorant.
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.