Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#91

Post by Molitor5901 »

FDAiscooked wrote: post #16
jason2323 wrote: post #2

What is the significance of this

FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards. FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court. A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open. Factory stays open. Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.

That's absolutely 100% false. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA considerable authority to shut down a food factory if it is not adhering to regulations and laws regarding safety.

Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#92

Post by kemayo »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #57

It Congress wants to change the law, they can. It's up to congress, not the administration, to make law. For decades it seems Congress has largely abdicated its legislative responsibility in exchange for the political ease of letting the administrative state, and the courts, make the law. Just because something has "precedence" doesn't mean it's right. Banning gay marriage had precedence, but that didn't make it righ…

That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers.

We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations.

(Granted, by the same logic, they could presumably start adding some "these rules should be interpreted according to the agency's definitions" boilerplate to new laws, if they really want that.)

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#93

Post by bell-cot »

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#94

Post by jandrese »

rootusrootus wrote: post #58
mywittyname wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hope from conservatives seems to be 100%.

There must be a great deal of tension within the right. On the one hand, some undoubtedly consider themselves small government libertarian types, but the recently ascendent MAGA folks are decidedly authoritarian and absolutely willing to use the federal government as a weapon against their perceived enemies. This sort of ruling helps the former but not the latter.

There is no tension.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Francis M. Wilhoit

Viewed through this lens the actions are completely consistent.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#96

Post by davidw »

mmanfrin wrote: post #90
xbar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer if this conservative court would review the constitution and conclude that it must revoke its own right of judicial review.

Turns out the notions of jurisprudence they claim to represent is all a farce for pushing specific political agendas after all.

It's all "calvinball".

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#97

Post by no_wizard »

throw0101c wrote: post #45

Some folks were predicting this: > It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current…

They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history.

The other thing this ignores is judicial bias. One positive of the Chevron ruling is that a well scoped agency with a clear agenda and expertise was able to oversee their domain of expertise and enforce rules under the Chevron Doctrine, which means in a well functioning agency (e.g. generally the SEC, FTC) didn’t have to rely on lengthy and often partisan court trials.

If you look at how we handle patents for instance, you have a good taste of what things going to look like going forward. It will completely hamstrung agencies and delay regulation enforcement for years if not decades. Unfortunately judges aren’t without bias and partisanship and this will reflect in the venues that get used for these hearings, like how most patent cases end up in a small Texas court due to how favorable that court is to patent holders.

This is going to be a mess. I don’t foresee judges deferring to agencies to speed up judicial review. I see courts becoming an even bigger partisan battle ground than they already are.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#98

Post by dctoedt »

Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe federal courts' power to set aside congressional directives such as the ones that led to Chevron deference. "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#99

Post by rswail »

I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority.

Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide.

So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate.

Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thinking without considering the side effects of the decision.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#100

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #87

So if courts aren't to defer to agencies on such matters, to where do they look? Congress? The executive? We can hate on regulatory agencies all day long, but they are least get stuff done. They show up to work and figure out how to move forwards. This decision seams a win for those political groups who, rather than actual fix anything, are bent on throwing sand into the gearbox.

"They get things done" has been one of the selling points for more than a few tyrannical regimes throughout history.
Post reply on HN