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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by kelnos »

VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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.

> 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.

Congress has already done that. Conservatives don't like that, calling the result the "administrative state". A very strict interpretation of the constitution could suggest that Congress cannot actually delegate legislative powers to executive branch agencies, and the conservative members of SCOTUS are (unfortunately) free to take up that interpretation.

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

#753

Post by Gormo »

callroomlamp wrote: post #118

Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy. The biggest question is who will interpret the application of law? Will it be challenged in court once again until a clear statement is made? Meanwhile, what will be the effects of this “deregulation” until a clear statement is made

> Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy.

You've got it exactly backwards. The relevant expertise in interpreting law and policy resides with the judiciary. Allowing administrative officials with no background in constitutional law or statutory interpretation to decide for themselves what the law they operate under means has lead to devastating power imbalances and opened the door to wide-ranging corruption and overstepping of authority.

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

#754

Post by Gormo »

cthalupa wrote: post #220
agensaequivocum wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.

Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. Congress cannot be expected to craft every bit of law and regulation down to the finest detail, and the gridlock that has been congress over the past several decades should make it clear that it's practically impossible. The regulatory power of federal agencies has never been broad and without oversight from oth…

> Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country.

The concept of administrative law did not even exist at the founding of the country -- executive-branch agencies making rules directly applicable to the public wasn't really a thing until about the turn of the 20th century.

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

#755

Post by kelnos »

granzymes wrote: post #711
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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…

I agree with Gorsuch's overall point, but he's also writing it knowing full well that today's Congress is not equipped to do all that rulemaking, and not equipped to agree on and pass the huge volume of legislation that would be necessary to duplicate all that rulemaking within the legislative branch.

And he's ok with this, because his political ideology is such that fewer regulations and less rulemaking is a good thing.

Ultimately Congress cannot take on all of the executive branch's current rulemaking authority without some huge changes to how the body works. Those changes will not happen, because conservatives don't want these rules.

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

#756

Post by Gormo »

radley wrote: post #193
stronglikedan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the application of law. It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. This is a fantastic decision on the part of the court.

> It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. I doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political, more responsible, and more governed by facts. Particularly when the party that made this decision has veered completely in the opposite direction. If anything, it will be used to prioriti…

> I doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political,

I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the expectation that a political institution should be 'less political' -- can you explain what you are getting at here?

> more governed by facts.

Fact substantiate 'is', but politics is about 'ought', and particularly, reconciling the contradictory 'ought's that prevail in varying quarters of society. Expecting politics to be 'governed by facts' requires taking a single set of values and interests for granted, which effectively means codifying one faction's ambitions into law at the expense of everyone else.

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

#757

Post by [deleted] »

skywhopper wrote: post #680
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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…

[deleted]

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

#758

Post by fzeroracer »

torstenvl wrote: post #172
pininja wrote: post #54

I was curious about cases where this played a role. Looks like the namesake case was about EPA Clean Air Act enforcement in the 80s (the outcome being regulation), and then an FCC ruling to classify internet providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services” and avoid stricter regulation (the outcome being deregulation). Overall, it seems the Chevron deference was a cornerstone of administra…

Until today, most national policy was set by "experts," i.e., people whose careers, professional reputation, and emotional bonds are bound up in the industry. That is to say, the rich and connected in any given area of life. The SEC is staffed with "experts" in exchanging securities, i.e., successful traders, who are then expected to govern traders. The inexorable result of this status quo is corruption and oligarchy…

Is Congress more or less corrupt than these experts?

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

#759

Post by Gormo »

lovethevoid wrote: post #257
rayiner wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untrue. The way it will work now is that judges will focus on their expertise—interpreting what the laws mean. And agency experts will focus on their expertise—applying that law to specific factual scenarios.

Actually without C Deference, agency experts can no longer apply that law to specific factual scenarios.

I'm not quite following here -- how does stopping executive-branch employees from stepping far outside of their technical expertise into the world of statutory interpretation and constitutional law stop them from continuing to conduct their duties prescribed by law, as explained by the judiciary?

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

#760

Post by [deleted] »

Dalewyn wrote: post #631
dilippkumar wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN