Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine

[Geee]

The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that could roll back the Chevron doctrine, which gave more power to federal agencies. Their ruling could have major implications for environmental regulations going forward.

 

The doctrine holds that cases in which the text of laws are open to interpretation are largely at agency discretion. It derives its name from the high court’s 1984 decision Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

 

In cases of unclear statutory language, according to the precedent, the court defers to any “permissible construction” by the agency in question.

 

In the past, members of the conservative wing that now dominates the court have expressed skepticism about the latitude the ruling grants to the federal government.

 

Now, SCOTUS will take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn it, announcing the move on Monday in a brief, unsigned order indicating at least four justices agreed to take up the case.

[Valin]

@Geee

What I have noticed is People (on the Right) are Assuming The Court will Overturn it. You know what happens when you Assume.

[Valin]

A View From The Left.

A new Supreme Court case seeks to make the nine justices even more powerful

The Court has spent the last several years claiming the other two branches’ powers for itself.
Ian Millhiser

May 2, 2023

Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will reconsider one of its modern foundational decisions, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council (1984), which for decades defined the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the executive branch of government.

Chevron established that courts ordinarily should defer to policymaking decisions made by federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Labor, for two reasons: Agencies typically have far greater expertise in the areas they regulate than judges, and thus are more likely to make wise policy decisions. And, while federal judges are largely immune from democratic accountability, federal agencies typically are run by officials who serve at the pleasure of an elected president — and thus have far more democratic legitimacy to make policy choices.

Nevertheless, next term the Court will hear a case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which explicitly asks “whether the court should overrule Chevron.” In the reasonably likely event that the Court does overrule this seminal decision, that would mean the death of one of the most cited decisions in the federal judiciary — according to the legal database Lexis Nexis, federal courts have cited Chevron in over 19,000 different judicial opinions.

Indeed, Chevron is arguably as important to the development of federal administrative law as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was important to the development of the law of racial equality.

(Snip)

[Geee]

Supreme Court may finally end rule of bureaucrats with ‘tragic’ Chevron case

The Supreme Court made a tragic mistake almost 40 years ago. 

In the 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, it ruled federal judges must defer to a regulatory agency’s interpretations of federal laws, so long as Congress has not addressed the issue in question and the agency’s view can be construed as “reasonable.”

Since then, the power of the unelected administrative state has ballooned so that it now dictates much of our economy and daily lives.

The court announced Monday it will revisit that precedent, raising hopes that this enormous federal power might be reined in.

The Constitution set up a system of separated powers in which Congress would pass the laws, the president would administer them and the courts would interpret them.

Since the New Deal, Congress has shirked its accountability by increasingly giving unelected agencies the power to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.

The Chevron decision turbocharged that process. :snip:

[Valin]

20 minutes ago, Geee said:

Supreme Court may finally end rule of bureaucrats with ‘tragic’ Chevron case

The Supreme Court made a tragic mistake almost 40 years ago.

To repeat myself "What I have noticed is People (on the Right) are Assuming The Court will Overturn it. You know what happens when you Assume."

[Geee]

59 minutes ago, Valin said:

To repeat myself "What I have noticed is People (on the Right) are Assuming The Court will Overturn it. You know what happens when you Assume."

I'm thinking that it's no slam dunk also.

[Valin]