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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by bumby »

chasd00 wrote: post #708
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?

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.

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

#722

Post by FactKnower69 »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #298
notabee wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the way elections are handled changes, such as doing anything that selects for expertise instead of partisan hackery, all this is going to do is accelerate the gridlock, corruption, and dysfunction. It just does not logically follow that putting more pressure on the legislative branch to be functional is going to work when its functionality or lack thereof is based largely on a very gerrymandered population be…

i am sympathetic to desire to change how elections are handled (universal suffrage is a stupid idea without universal risk/ skin in the game, we need a way to make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method) but its not happening. i also think you are mistaking long term corruption and…

>we need a way to make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method

another small govt ideologue that thinks the US's federal budget works like a household's

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

#723

Post by tstrimple »

tiahura wrote: post #662
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…

How would a random person have standing?

Standing doesn’t matter. A conservative website creator was able to take a case all the way up to the Supreme Court without ever have been sued. They just made up a situation where an alleged customer demanded they make a gay website. The customer never even existed. This is on top of the Supreme Court literally legalizing bribing of government officials across the country as long as the payment is made after the favor and not before. Then it’s just a gratuity and not a bribe. The entire system is rotten at this point.

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

#724

Post by zer0zzz »

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.

Except that the congress has been in a rut where it defaults to nothing of substance getting achieved

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

#725

Post by [deleted] »

chasd00 wrote: post #708
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?

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.

[deleted]

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

#726

Post by salawat »

dctoedt wrote: post #252
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.

> 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. It's not always that simple: Sometimes, trying to interpret "the law" in the abstract, without deep knowledge of the factual context, is like being a bull in a china shop. The conservative justices' various obsessions with textualism, originalism, an…

Judges are Article III, and the need for them laid out explicitly in the text of the Constitution itself.

Chevron deference, and the corpus of administrative law unsubject to judicial review it spawned, most decidedly is not.

That makes judges a bit more of a fixture in the grand scheme of things than all these "agencies" running their own pseudo-courts so that Congress critters can spend their tenure voting one another pay raises, and insider trading among themselves.

>it's manifestly not on federal judges to say "oh no, you can only do that in a way that lets us judges have the dominant seat at the table."

Actually, it manifestly is on the judiciary to say that. If Congress started adding clauses to legislation to the tune of "this law is not subject to judicial review", the judiciary is fully within it's rights as outlined by the Constitution to strike down the law, as the Legislature, by definition, cannot produce a thing with force of law contradicting a limitation placed on it by the Constitution short of another Constitutional Amendment + the requisite ratifications. An unconstitutional law, is no law at all. The issue of constitutionality is purely the realm of the judiciary. No one else. You can change what the Judiciary looks like; but you can't structurally usurp it's powers under the Constitution.

There is a reason Jefferson and Madison were really nervous about how the judiciary ended up playing out in practice though.

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

#727

Post by CapitalistCartr »

s1k3s wrote: post #720
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.

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)?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.

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

#728

Post by jkic47 »

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…

Actually, the side effects of allowing unelected Reg agencies to make decisions (and the quality of those decisions to date) is exactly what is driving their decision.

Congress being parsimonious with laws is probably a good thing...read their Stare decisis paragraphs.

Here is the decision for you to read, in case you hadn't yet read it before posting. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

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

#729

Post by throw0101b »

jessriedel wrote: post #479
kemayo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations. (Gran…

> 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 other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.

* https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html

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

#730

Post by r00fus »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #727
s1k3s wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.

Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.
Post reply on HN