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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by rayiner »

shawndrost wrote: post #701
rayiner wrote: post #598

The media's coverage of this as a "conservative win" is extremely misleading. This case is simply about whether agencies or judges should interpret what federal regulatory statutes mean. Chevron itself was written by five conservatives (and one democrat--with three other justices not participating) and overruled a decision authored by then D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She had sided with an environmental ad…

What an incredible coincidence that everyone -- the media, the judges who voted 6-3, and HN commenters like yourself -- sees this case along ideological lines!

Every case is obviously going to be viewed through the legal of legal ideology. That’s different from making it seem like it favors one particular political ideology. Liberals hated Chevron because agencies were generally less willing to push the law in their favor than judges. Under this ruling, they can go and sue in the ninth circuit and have liberal judges Decide what the clean air act means.

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

#782

Post by Amezarak »

azemetre wrote: post #717
VincentEvans wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By winning clear majorities, either "side" can do whatever it wants, including changing all the House/Senate rules to pass laws with simple majorities.

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

#783

Post by Gormo »

mywittyname wrote: post #11
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So...bad. I'm the person who prefers having regulatory bodies handle matters over a dysfunctional and ignorant congress who is political about everything.

To borrow from Babbage, I can't rightly comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that might lead one to complain about political institutions being political.

The entire purpose of the political (and judicial) process is to reconcile to competing interests and conflicting values of the wide variety of people who make up society.

It is a delusion to hold that the matters regulatory bodies are involved in are somehow entirely empirical questions with unambiguously correct answers -- in reality, there are normative questions, value judgments, trade-offs and conflicts of interest inherent in every decision point.

These decisions are political ones, and allowing regulatory bodies to make inherently political decisions for everyone else can only have the effect of entrenching one faction's interests and values at the expense of everyone else's.

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

#784

Post by cryptonector »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #619

Can anyone speak to what this will mean for the ATF’s “rulemaking”?

They won't be able to stretch the law as much as they have at times. As the court's decision in Raimondo and the concurrences note, the court had already stopped using Chevron since 2016. Notably the court ignored Chevron last week when they decided that bump stocks are not machine guns -- if you read that decision it was all about the interpretation of "more than one shot with a single action of the trigger", which is precisely what the court would have deferred to the ATF on under Chevron and which it did not now.

The scaffold of federal gun control (NFA etc.) remains untouched by Raimondo. Only ATF rulings regarding various technologies developed in the past 40 years will be affected, and probably not that very many. I doubt more than a very small handful of ATF rulings will be affected.

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

#785

Post by edmundsauto »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #632
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…

> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This is the goal. Want to pollute? You will soon when the EPA has no teeth.

Do you think states will be able to enforce their own pollution restrictions? If so, life in blue states will get comparatively better - I say this as someone who remembers the awful Los Angeles pollution effects of the 1980s.

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

#786

Post by autoexec »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #649
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…

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…

> This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.'...Before anyone says there were still checks and balances - if you feel the need to, you have no idea what Cheveron meant

It's wild to think that either of things couldn't have been possible without Chevron. Congress would have passed anything required to allow those to become law.

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

#787

Post by fzeroracer »

soerxpso wrote: post #518
RIMR wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much direct irrefutable evidence that the SCOTUS has been corrupted. The extreme ideological tilt is disturbing enough, but it's clear that these judges answer to the highest bidder, not the American people or the intent of the Founding Fathers.

What? Some guy making a vague statement on a web forum with nothing concrete to back it is "direct, irrefutable evidence"? I'd like to see any evidence at all that any SCOTUS judge is actually profiting from this decision in any way. Chevron was corrupt 40 years ago; overturning it is not, or at least isn't more corrupt than the decision originally was in the first place.

Clarence Thomas? The huge amount of gifts he's taken from Republican donors who have ties to real estate companies and businesses that benefit the most from things like 'pesky environmental regulations' being weakened or removed?

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

#788

Post by cryptonector »

jjk166 wrote: post #112
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…

> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...

Not laws but executive agency rulemaking.

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

#789

Post by jessriedel »

throw0101b wrote: post #729
jessriedel wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. It's not. There's long standing precedent, since well before Chevron, that Congress does not have unlimited ability to delegate its powers. E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it…

> E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). If you want to talk about precedent, 1825: > It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any oth…

Right, Congress can delegate details and implementation, but it can’t delegate basic legislation. That’s obviously a burry boundary, but it’s clear they can’t abdicate their powers in general.

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

#790

Post by cryptonector »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #41
jason2323 wrote: post #2

What is the significance of this

When Congress writes a law that establishes a new regulatory agency, they outline what that agency does and how they enforce the regulations. Inevitably as time goes on, new edge cases come up or someone realize that the law is ambiguous. Chevron deference established a precedent where the regulatory agencies were allowed to resolve these ambiguous cases or do things not specifically written into the law. This decisi…

Not just companies, but also individuals.
Post reply on HN