SCOTUS: Chevron Doctrine: Corporations vs America

[searcher]

Hope this hasn't already been posted.

Supreme Court takes on executive branch in broad fight over policymaking power​

The Supreme Court has been chiseling away at the administrative state for years. Now it may be poised to take a giant chunk of power away from federal regulators.

A legal fight over an obscure commercial fishing rule appears to be on the verge of fulfilling a decades long goal of legal conservatives: the demolition of a legal doctrine used to sustain a vast array of federal government policies ranging from gun safety to immigration to pollution controls.

The nation’s highest court will spend Wednesday mulling how much deference judges must give to federal agency regulations and other executive branch decisions. After more than a decade of pushing from conservatives, the court appears to be headed toward making it much easier for judges to strike down policies crafted by federal bureaucrats when the congressional authorization for those policies isn’t crystal clear.

A broad ruling against agency power would be a potent victory for business interests and other foes of regulation. And it would be sure to hinder the policymaking power of Joe Biden and his successors, because presidents — especially Democrats — have increasingly tried to use ambitious agency regulations to achieve their goals in the face of a calcified Congress.

More:

MSN

 

[searcher]

Corporations Have Been Salivating Over This SCOTUS Decision | Robert Reich​

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that could upend federal regulations designed to protect us.
Big corporations are salivating for a ruling that goes their way.
Here’s what you need to know.

 

[pmbug]

The executive branch should not be effecting restrictions on the people via administrative dictate. If Congress has not passed a Constiutional law enabling the executive branch, the court should absolutely strike down administative overreach. $.02

 

[searcher]

TPM opinion piece

Gorsuch Gleefully Leads Right-Wing Cohort In Fulfilling Their Federalist Society Quest

The Gorsuch-led right-wing justices are poised to hobble executive branch agencies, a conservative legal mission decades in the making.

talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[Joe King]

The executive branch should not be effecting restrictions on the people via administrative dictate. If Congress has not passed a Constiutional law enabling the executive branch, the court should absolutely strike down administative overreach. $.02

To say the least!

I can't imagine how any American with even a cursory knowledge of what America was intended to be, being in favor of such gov bs.

It's up to Congress to make the laws, not the executive agencies.

Regulations are only supposed to enforce the exact wording and explicit intent of the statutes enacted, not make shit up.

Edited to add: shit like that is how we ended up with a swamp in dc.

 

[searcher]

Opinion pieces:

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron - SCOTUSblog

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 r

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court Overruling Chevron Doctrine Would Be an Oedipal Act

 

[pmbug]

Good. This will force Congress to write laws with less ambiguity (or they cede power to the Judiciary).

 

[searcher]

From Hartmann Report:

Does the EPA Die Today?

The Supreme Court, it appears, is planning to gut most of America’s regulatory agencies in what could be the most consequential re-write of the protective “deep state” since the New Deal…

open.substack.com

 

[pmbug]

Legal analysis of the issue at play:

...
Last week, the Supreme Court heard nearly four hours of argument about the Chevron doctrine—including whether it should be cast aside. Not surprisingly, much of the argument consisted of different conceptions of what Chevron means. The nub of the problem is to specify what must happen for a court to depart from ordinary statutory interpretation (Chevron's step one) and defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of the statute (Chevron's step two). The argument (in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce) largely proceeded on the assumption that a court must turn to step two if it concludes the statute is "ambiguous" or includes a "gap." At some points, however, the advocates and the Justices thought that the critical question was whether Congress has implicitly "delegated" interpretive authority to the agency.

If we attempt to solve the problem by parsing what was said in the 1984 Chevron case, we quickly encounter the difficulty that Justice Stevens said both things. He wrote, on the one hand, that the court should employ "traditional tools of statutory construction" to determine whether a statute is "silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue." In other words, ambiguity is the key.

But, on the other hand, he also wrote that if Congress makes "an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation," the agency's interpretation will prevail unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." He immediately added: "Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit," in which case also the court should accept "a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency." In other words, explicit or implicit delegation to the agency to interpret is the key.
...

More:

Prof. Thomas Merrill on "The Chevron Argument: Ambiguity Versus Delegation"

I'm delighted to pass along this item from Prof. Thomas Merrill (Columbia), whom readers might remember as a guest-blogger from…

reason.com

 

[Casey Jones]

To say the least!

I can't imagine how any American with even a cursory knowledge of what America was intended to be, being in favor of such gov bs.

It's up to Congress to make the laws, not the executive agencies.

Regulations are only supposed to enforce the exact wording and explicit intent of the statutes enacted, not make shit up.

Edited to add: shit like that is how we ended up with a swamp in dc.

The pendulum swings....

Eventually we were bound to get to this point. Once regulations became accepted by courts as de-facto law, it was only a matter of time - many generations of bureaucrats, to be sure, but each came into position with the Overton Window having shifted a bit.

I don't know the details of the challenge here, but as it's been working through...in the name of "Climate Change" our vehicular fuels have been ordered modified to where they are damaging and more expensive in preparation. Automobiles have been regulated to the point where compliance is not cost-effective at the present (pricing economy new cars out beyond realistic reach of most people) and will essentially ban them in the future.

These regulators do not live in the real world, outside their Beltway bubble; and they have contempt for the needs of real-world citizens, making much less money than government drones, and with no input on this carpet-bombing of "regulations."

 

[searcher]

US Supreme Court decision on deference could impact oil, gas policies: experts​

The US Supreme Court will soon decide whether to limit the discretion given to agency regulations, and a decision to scale back or do away with so-called Chevron deference could hinder agencies' ability to consider the climate and conservation impacts of oil and gas projects and leases, experts say.

Chevron deference could come up if agencies take final action on a range of controversial issues, including the Department of Energy's decision to pause approvals of LNG exports to consider issues like climate, and the Bureau of Land Management's proposal to lease land for conservation rather than a use like oil and gas extraction.

More:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/040524-us-supreme-court-decision-on-deference-could-impact-oil-gas-policies-experts