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

681–690 of 951 posts

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

#681

Post by FactKnower69 »

masklinn wrote: post #472
MR4D wrote: post #453

Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons. Here’s hoping this decision causes Congress to write laws with more clarity now that they cannot be as sloppy and get away with it. There may be much upheaval in the short term, but for that reason alone, I think it will have a positive impact on the country. One other re…

> Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons. A massive reason in this case is that congress are not matter experts, laws are already large and unwieldy, and agencies need flexibility in their work as, as ponderous as they are, they're still more nimble than congress and need that in order to react to changes in th…

>I'm sure the individual will greatly benefit when the EPA's regulation of the next great carcinogen is struck down on grounds that congress has not explicitly restricted it.

This is the real motivation; the Lead Paint voting bloc is dying off and desperately needs replacing if current political demographics are to be maintained

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

#682

Post by granzymes »

VincentEvans wrote: post #640

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence:

> How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services. There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a “reasonable” interpretation of the statute. Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it with another. Later still, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, officials replaced that rule with a different one, all before President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention to reverse course for yet a fourth time. Each time, the government claimed its new rule was just as “reasonable” as the last. Rather than promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law, Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself remains unchanged.

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

#683

Post by CivBase »

skywhopper wrote: post #656
VincentEvans wrote: post #640

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

Likewise Congress could clearly state that agencies are not allowed to interpret the gaps. If Congress was unhappy with how the executive branch was working, it could solve the problem easily and directly. So the Court, when making this decision, was not concerned about what’s “right” or even Constitutional. It showed its hand by disrupting existing rulemaking that has been going on and explicitly allowed by the Cour…

> Changing the status quo on a fundamental de facto government structure is not good judiciating.

Isn't the fundamental structure that the legislative branch writes laws, the judicial brand interprets laws, and the executive branch enacts/enforces laws? That's what I was taught in school.

I don't doubt that this is a political move to shift power from a liberal presidency to a conservative supreme court. But to me it seems like a case of the right thing done for the wrong reason.

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

#684

Post by cryptonector »

rswail wrote: post #99

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 thin…

You misunderstand the situation. Agencies will still get to make regulations, but where there's any legitimate question/controversy over their interpretation of the law the courts will make the final decision -- final, at least, until Congress modifies the law to get whatever effect they had wanted (which might not be the one the agency wanted).

Also, by and large the vast majority of regulations will stand.

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

#685

Post by cryptonector »

throw0101b wrote: post #670
anonymouse008 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thankful. Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances .' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.' We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision fr…

> Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. Delegation dates back to (at least) the early 1900s: > Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,…

This is not about delegation. This is about interpretation of the limits of delegated power. Under Chevron the executive agencies decided that without check. Before Chevron and after Raimondo it's the courts that decide. The 40 years of Chevron were an aberration.

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

#686

Post by bcrosby95 »

maxwell wrote: post #328
rootusrootus wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this decision do that, or does it just move the accumulation of power to a different branch? From bureaucrats who can be fired to unelected judges with lifetime tenure. How would you argue that this is an improvement? The response may be that Congress makes far more specific legislation, along with all the weird pitfalls that will come from that, and outsources the actual text to corporate lobbyists. That seems…

It's not moving power from the executive to the judicial branch, it's forcing legislative responsibility back on Congress. Note that constituents in the U.S. have the worst representation of any OECD country. Worse than Commie China. America's biggest problem is the "Permanent" Apportionment Act of 1929.

I agree. Congress is far too small. Both the house and senate. There's too much work for them to do.

I would go even further: maybe congress should be expanded such that we have different chambers for different aspects of life. This way we could elect a lawmaker for each domain... e.g. 1 focused on environmental legislation, 1 focused on financial legislation, etc... rather than trying to cram all sides into a single unicorn lawmaker.

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

#687

Post by azemetre »

VincentEvans wrote: post #668
skywhopper wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise Congress could clearly state that agencies are not allowed to interpret the gaps. If Congress was unhappy with how the executive branch was working, it could solve the problem easily and directly. So the Court, when making this decision, was not concerned about what’s “right” or even Constitutional. It showed its hand by disrupting existing rulemaking that has been going on and explicitly allowed by the Cour…

I am not surprised that conservative-leaning court has put their finger on the scale of what they always described as “activism of agencies” and “legislating from the bench” by pushing the congress to act - I see it as consistent with conservative principles. I am not saying I agree with it or condemn it - rather stating the path forward. I too would like congress to start acting the part. They have the tools.

How do you expect Congress to legislate when one side refuses to legislate?

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

#688

Post by jkic47 »

matrix87 wrote: post #678
VincentEvans wrote: post #640

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

> Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. One could argue, similarly to overturning Roe, they're diverging from a very critical precedent which is going to trigger a flurry of lawsuits over the next couple years

That was actually addressed on Page 7 of the decision.

They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spend significant time arguing that stare decisis underpinning Roe v Wade is not valid.

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

#689

Post by s1k3s »

VincentEvans wrote: post #640

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US (generally speaking)?

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

#690

Post by bumby »

chasd00 wrote: post #680
VincentEvans wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can court override the power of congress to put Chevron into law? Have there been instances where court struck down a law passed by congress before?

i don't remember my government class exactly but i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. I'm not sure if it can explicitly strike down a law but declaring it unconstitutional would be effectively the same.

>i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

Interestingly, the ability to declare a law un/constitutional is not an enumerated power given to the court by the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared that power for itself in Marbury v. Madison and people have just went with it ever since.

Post reply on HN