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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by mike_hearn »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #385
mike_hearn wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth reading the judgement itself. The court has indeed voted to give the courts more power, but not on the basis of nothing. It did so because it views it as taking back powers that were incorrectly/lazily given up without basis in what Congress wanted. From the judgement: Congress in 1946 enacted the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] “as a check upon administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried th…

The constitution very explicitly grants Congress the right to strip jurisdiction from the federal courts. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-...

But they apparently haven't done so, unless you know of a law that supercedes the APA the court is citing?

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

#403

Post by prrrywinkle »

treflop wrote: post #358
brettcvz wrote: post #71

This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?

From my understanding of political science classes, this is how the founders wrote it to be. Actually, it's supposed to be like this… Congress writes laws. Executive interprets those laws and decides ambiguities on its own. Some of those ambiguities are contested so courts decide the outcome. If that court’s outcome is contested, then Congress makes a new ruling explicitly stating what they want. Then it repeats. It’…

[dead]

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

#404

Post by p_l »

parhamn wrote: post #315
throw0101c wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. On any given matter there are, at first, no laws on a given subject. Before airplanes were invented there were no rules or regulations for airplanes (FAA); similarly, pre-radio, nothing about how to use EM fields (FCC). Now, The (US) People gave The Congress authority to make laws on any subject (limited only by th…

> So Congress delegated further rule making Couldnt they just do this formally? Afaict scotus didnt rule it's unconstitutional for congress to explicitly defer, but the derefence, which originated in court precedent, isn't good. Theres nothing stoping congress from explictly defering either via act or in the act. Right?

A textualist interpretation would be that indeed congress is now stopped from that, as anything that isn't described without doubt in an act of congress is now up to court to decide, not delegated agency.

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

#405

Post by andyjohnson0 »

treflop wrote: post #358
brettcvz wrote: post #71

This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?

From my understanding of political science classes, this is how the founders wrote it to be. Actually, it's supposed to be like this… Congress writes laws. Executive interprets those laws and decides ambiguities on its own. Some of those ambiguities are contested so courts decide the outcome. If that court’s outcome is contested, then Congress makes a new ruling explicitly stating what they want. Then it repeats. It’…

> It’s a cycle of checks and balances that is supposed to loop back into itself.

Except that the US doesn't have a functioning legislative branch, so the corrective feedback action never happens. The justices who are making these rulings, and their clients, are very well aware of this.

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

#406

Post by lolinder »

consumer451 wrote: post #43

From Justice Kagan's dissent on page 82: > This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes... > It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other…

To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very loosely in order to adapt to the changing situation and—importantly—to adapt to changing presidencies.

That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the federal government can be completely undone based on the results of a single nationwide election that we have every four years. It means that every right, every process, every plan that interacts with the federal government in any way has a four-year shelf life.

Government by administrative rule is why no one is getting too excited about non-competes getting banned or non-solicitation agreements curtailed. It's why I'm nervous about the future of the IRS's free tax filing software. It's why there are whole industries built up around trying to keep up with the latest about-face that the executive branch has made.

The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. It sucks for anyone who gets used to a benefit only to have it stripped out with an administrative change. It sucks for anyone who's trying to plan anything out on a longer timetable than four years.

If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws that can't just be upended with the next presidential election or if it forces states to start taking on the role that the federal government has hitherto failed to fill then in the long run this ruling will be better for everyone. It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out.

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

#407

Post by themaninthedark »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #284
bell-cot wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obvious check #1: Congress gets its sh*t together, and stops writing endless vague blather into law. Obvious check #2: Congress enlarges the Supreme Count to 21 Justices. And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss.

> And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss. And who, in your view, is supposed to be the real boss? Congress? Or the President? The Supreme Court is supposed to be independent . Changing that needs a much higher threshold than "bell-cot doesn't like some recent Supreme Court decisions".

Exactly, the statement is very telling of the lack of understanding of how our government is supposed to operate, how and why the system is set up the way it is.

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

#408

Post by efitz »

brettcvz wrote: post #71

This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?

Alternative interpretation:

The courts just remedied a situation where the executive branch of government had arrogated to itself powers reserved to the legislature by the Constitution.

Notably another case ruled on this week did the same thing, by invalidating many agency-specific “administrative courts” and restored the rights of citizens to seek redress in actual courts.

I and many others believe that executive branch agencies (“the federal bureaucracy“) has become an out-of-control unaccountable 4th branch of government, and I for one am delighted to see them reined in.

Note that agencies will still be able to perform enforcement; they just have to stay within the bounds set by laws and they will no longer be the sole arbiters of those bounds.

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

#409

Post by p_l »

bluGill wrote: post #330
aport wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather unelected bureaucrat scientists decide how to implement the intent and application of laws than congress.

You hake no reason to assume that. The people who will try to write those regulations are those with have an angle. We call it regulatory capture.

Which is way easier when you only have to convince random court with a gish-galloping person as "expert witness".

Regulatory capture at agency level is way harder to do.

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

#410

Post by jliptzin »

debacle wrote: post #377
Spivak wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we froth at the mouth every two years instead? I get the argument but I'm not really sure this is going to help in the way you want it.

Absolutely. I have 400 times more control over who my congressman is than who the president is.

But your congressman has less than 1/400 the power of the President.
Post reply on HN