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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by trzy »

yaksha wrote: post #845
kelnos wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Are those rules necessary? Do those rules have to be implemented at the federal level? Can the states take responsibility for some of the items instead?

Not possible. The US is on the fast track to be humbled and humiliated by its geopolitical rival, China.

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

#882

Post by rhaksw »

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 cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.

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

#883

Post by colde »

kelnos wrote: post #750
VincentEvans wrote: post #705

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?

If they believe Chevron is unconstitutional, sure. And there's certainly an argument for it on separation-of-powers grounds.

They don't believe it's unconstitutional. They believe it conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act from 1946. Something that they apparently believe the unanimous decision in Chevron from 1984 got wrong.

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

#884

Post by bastawhiz »

rhaksw wrote: post #882
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 cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.

There's no issue with Congress interpreting laws here. The executive branch is (was). Which they have to do because how do you enforce a law that you do not have an interpretation of? If Congress disagrees with the judiciary's interpretation they can just pass a law that makes their interpretation the literal law.

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

#885

Post by mushufasa »

icelancer wrote: post #823
mushufasa wrote: post #608

This is a complete disaster. The ramifications will be felt for decades. Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything. And immeasurable impacts of cowing all bold business decisions to avoid the ire of any person or group, no matte…

> Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Spurious lawsuits annoying small businesses is already the case in America. I've defended against plenty of them. The concept of someone using random lawsuits to target local courts to overturn federal agency policy is very far removed from a businessowner's mind compa…

Think bigger. You're NovoNordisk. FDA says ozempic is safe for use. A local California court bans it because they say it hasn't been properly tested and endangers Californians. Billion dollar market, wiped off the map. Now New York is following path. You can try to fight it but either way you've suffered incredible repetitional damage: FUD (fear uncertainty and denial) is now forevermore "the drug that California banned for being unsafe."

Or, imagine a texas court banning COVID vaccines.

These are not hypotheticals, these are real court cases that could now swing against agencies.

Whatever your opinion on specific factual matters, everyone should be concerned about widespread disorder.

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

#886

Post by rhaksw »

cryptonector wrote: post #715
throw0101b wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's more clear if you use the word vest and divest rather than delegation. Congress cannot divest its own legislative powers, nor can it vest them in another branch.

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

#887

Post by [deleted] »

anon373839 wrote: post #816
cryptonector wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court decided this on statutory grounds because that's what this court likes to do: base decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. But it mentioned Marbury quite prominently and it's pretty clear that the court will not sustain a law that codifies Chevron.

I suppose Congress could use its power under Article III’s Exceptions Clause to strip the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of jurisdiction to hear cases challenging an agency’s adherence to its enabling statute. Courts would still always be able to hear constitutional challenges, of course.

[deleted]

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

#888

Post by rhaksw »

anigbrowl wrote: post #827
Gormo wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action. Sounds great. How we got to the point where executive-branch agencies were making rules with the force of law, binding upon the public with no judicial oversight, is a mystery to me, but it's good to see that the courts are taking their responsibil…

a mystery to me It's ably explained in Roberts' opinion. In short, Congress often left the fine details to the agencies, not least because the laws were often drafted within those same agencies. Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (which…

> Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant

Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work.

> in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act

This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA,

"Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."

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

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

#889

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#890

Post by tw04 »

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.

>Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. This Supreme Court knows it. This is nothing more than deregulation on a scale not seen in modern American history. When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why.

Post reply on HN