What does this mean for the FDA?
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
441–450 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is taking power away from regulator bodies like EPA that enforce the laws and giving it to the courts... taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts.
How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law. That's literally their job. If the parties before them feel that they need expert knowledge to render the right ruling, then they need to take those experts and either depose them or have them testify. Expert witnesses are a thing; this is not some new idea.
> How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law.
Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system. They are frequently about scientific matters, for example. What constitutes a threat to public health? What constitutes pollution of a waterway?
When Congress authorizes an agency to maintain, say, clean drinking water, it entrusts scientific experts to determine, based on the most up-to-date evidence, what constitutes a pollutant that is harmful to human health. We do not need Congress to pass a new law every time we get new scientific evidence that a particular chemical (say, PFAS), is harmful.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#443What is the significance of this
Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts. A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.
I could not disagree more
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fed…
It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.
> It won't force Congress to do shit.
In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post-Dobbs, with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else.
Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people.
Either way—federally or at the state level—we need written laws drafted by elected representatives in a body that has more inertia than the single position of chief executive.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#445This 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?
Hey, that was the goal and plan of the various organizations that got these judges in place.
I mean, what checks and balances apply to focused, dedicated, funded campaigns and teams, supported by backers willing to spend multiple decades and the millions necessary - to over turn laws, win minor elections, get judges into lower courts? People spent the time to understand the system so that it could be changed in a way they think is superior.
The SC situation is the fruit of such labor.
The shortest path solution to something like this is still decades long.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.
Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the courts did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws.
I used to feel this way, and I can't quite identify the totality of what shifted my position, but now I parse this as "we just need to motivate congress" and it feels wrong.
The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.
Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fed…
And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off. Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#448This 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?
It sounds to me like they just gave the legislative branch some of it's responsibility back. Delegating their job to the executive branch of government has created agencies that make and enforce rules themselves, and ultimately operate at the whim of whoever the president happens to be at the time.
If congress wants to delegate details to experts they could explicitly state that in the law, and create their own organization of experts to do the job. Giving the president more power is not a requirement, and enforcement should remain separate. But even then, regulations shouldn't be ambiguous. The laws should state something like "food purity should be within %x of yada yada, where x is updated yearly by the appropriate agency" Then it's up to the courts to decide if the law was broken or not.
In the short term this could be a nightmare as companies flaunt all sorts of regulation, but I think overall it is a good thing.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is taking power away from regulator bodies like EPA that enforce the laws and giving it to the courts... taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts.
How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law. That's literally their job. If the parties before them feel that they need expert knowledge to render the right ruling, then they need to take those experts and either depose them or have them testify. Expert witnesses are a thing; this is not some new idea.
Because this is not law in terms of billy having stolen a bushel of apples, and the expert is not called on to evaluate the value of the apples in order to determine whether billy is below or above the line for a class 3 misdemeanour.
The statutes regulating agencies are generally broad signposts, giving the agency a mission statement and a direction but leaving it a large latitude to implement it and decide on the details. That latitude has a legal implication since the agency is generally responsible for setting and enforcing standards.
The Chevron Deference is the legal doctrine that since congress delegated its power to the agency as matter and implementation experts, the agency's policy decisions should be deferred to so long as:
- it's legally ambiguous aka congress has not answered the precise issue themselves
- it is a permissible construction of the statute
The entire point of the chevron statute is that it's not up to the judicial branch to set government policy, and if a problem is a legal void then they have no authority, and unless and until congress makes a specific decision the agency does.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fed…
And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off. Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.
[dead]