SCOTUS Overturns 'Chevron Deference' In Massive Blow To 'Administrative State' \ stacker news ~news

SCOTUS Overturns 'Chevron Deference' In Massive Blow To 'Administrative State'www.zerohedge.com/political/scotus-overturns-chevron-deference-massive-blow-administrative-state

1830 sats \ 69 comments \ @siggy47 28 Jun news

This is huge. This will be a check on those executive orders both Bush and Obama started to really abuse, and Trump and Biden continued.

"Today's ruling is a massive blow to the 'administrative state', the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers' rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. "

view all related items

197 sats \ 8 replies \ @kepford 28 Jun

@siggy47 this sounds like a good change for liberty to me but I've also heard people say this Chevron Deference thing isn't as radical as those screaming about losing it claim. The administrative agencies had a TON of power before it is what I hear and they doubt this will be a radical change.

It reminds me of the screeching about Roe. It just goes back to the States where it should be. Democracy right? Vs. Judges making decisions for millions of people. It didn't ban abortion. It simply made it more democratic.

I wonder if this is similar.

65 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

This is a bigger deal than Roe

The problem with Chevron doctrine was too much deference from the legislative and judicial branches.

Unelected bureaucrats get drunk on power after a sip. They are as bad or worse than the annoying mods on Reddit

Chevron doctrine was established in 1984. The Supreme Court kneecapped itself and the federal judiciary by allowing regulators to interpret laws or rules or dictates. Judges interpret laws not regulators. Agencies have also setup administrative courts to settle legal disputes, ie always rule in favor of agency. These administrative courts are rigged.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 28 Jun

It could be. I don't know. I guess we will see.

76 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

I'm not sure about the how beneficial this is. It is a good thing to take decision making power from unelected bureaucrats. For me, I thought it would also check a president's power regarding those terrible executive orders, since I think those powers are drawn from executive agencies' rule making ability. Now I'm not sure, since people who know more about this than me haven't mentioned this yet.

122 sats \ 0 replies \ @026180d3a3 28 Jun

@siggy47

The civil war demonstrated that the Chief Executive's powers derive directly from the Constitution and have as its aim the preservation of the Union through Law which is binding on the States.

The check on those orders would be impeachment, ultimately.

Edited to add: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-1/ALDE_00000243/

Further edited to also add: https://www.johnadamsacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=2003858&type=d&pREC_ID=2094472

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Chevron case was not about President executive orders.

Executive orders can be blocked by a federal court or stymied by Congress.

Remember Trump first executive order on immigration in 2017? A judge in Hawaii declared it illegal or unconstitutional.

Obama went overboard with his executive orders in his second term. His defense was I can’t wait for the Republicans in Congress to agree with me so I have to govern without them. If you don’t like it sue me. Ted Cruz brought up impeachment, his way of suing Obama.

Obama unconstitutional DACA executive order was repealed by Trump. The repeal was challenged and chief justice John Roberts upheld DACA because of a trivial technicality.

Lincoln most famous executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation , which took effect on January 1, 1863. This executive order freed slaves in the confederacy only. Slave states in the Union did not emancipate.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

Thanks for this. I had a feeling.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Lawyers intuition lol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron "defies the command of" the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.

He said it "requires a court to ignore, not follow, 'the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.'"

Further, he said it "is misguided" because "agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

"In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority "disdains restraint, and grasps for power," making "a laughingstock" of stare decisis and producing "large-scale disruption" throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified."

64 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jun

https://x.com/heminator/status/1807163371197743426?s=46

Does anyone at all understand the case that overturned Chevron? Because the facts there are pretty damning and show why federal bureaucrats can't be trusted to interpret and enforce their own rules.

Basically, the really short version of what happened was this -- a family fishing business sued because they were paying $700 a day to have federal regulators oversee their business. The statute governing the National Marine Fisheries Service says nothing about making their business pay for the cost of their own regulation, and it was just decided along the way that businesses would have to foot the bill for the NMFS' own enforcement.

Because of Chevron, which grants overly broad powers to bureaucrats to interpret the law, the idea that federal agencies could essentially make their own regs and make people pay if they didn't have the budget to enforce them was tolerated.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 OP 30 Jun

Thanks for posting this. I still don't really understand the issue or implications yet, but this helps. I have to do some more reading.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jun

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Atlantic herring fishermen who challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation requiring them to pay for on-board observers at up to $700 per day[1][3][4][5]. The conservative-leaning court overturned the 40-year-old Chevron deference precedent, which had allowed federal agencies to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress[1][3][4].

The fishermen argued that Congress never authorized the NMFS to impose these observer fees, which could amount to up to 20% of their annual returns[2]. Lower courts had previously upheld the regulation by deferring to the NMFS's interpretation under the Chevron doctrine[3][4].

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision significantly limits the power of federal agencies to regulate industries like fishing, potentially opening the door for more legal challenges to environmental, health, and workplace safety rules[3][4]. However, the practical impact is that the herring fishermen will no longer face the potential $700 per day observer fees[4].

Sources [1] Supreme Court hears fishermen's challenge that could upend ... https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/supreme-court-hears-fishermen-s-challenge-that-could-upend-agency-powers [2] Supreme Court case by Northeast fisheries may overturn landmark ... https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/04/supreme-court-case-by-northeast-fisheries-may-overturn-landmark-legal-precedent [3] The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, ruling in case ... https://whyy.org/articles/supreme-court-chevron-decision-new-jersey-fisherman-federal-regulations/ [4] Supreme Court dumps 40-year precedent in major blow to federal ... https://abc7.com/supreme-court-dumps-40-year-precedent-in-major-blow-to-federal-regu/15008923/ [5] Supreme Court could reel in power of federal agencies with dual ... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-herring-federal-agencies/

64 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jun

Sometimes the facts of a case are more persuasive than a novel legal theory

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 30 Jun

This is an old adage that you learn the first year of law school: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/718207?journalCode=jls

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jun

Hard cases make bad law

Solution: avoid hard cases lol

95 sats \ 3 replies \ @thecommoner 28 Jun

My initial reaction is that this is likely to have broad ranging impacts on entire swaths of societal systems... working in housing and with HUD at that...this is likely to impact their "administrative" interpretations of laws and how they are to be acted on....Hold on to your hats boys and girls....things are about to get wild!

73 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

I hope so

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Liberals and progressives are angry. Kagan wrote a weak lazy dissent

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @thecommoner 28 Jun

I can't believe we are only 9863 blocks into this epoch and it is already EPIC!

91 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

This is a major decision. More important than abortion or affirmative action

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @BlokchainB 28 Jun

Why?

50 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

It will neuter the administrative state, unelected bureaucrats wielding too much power, unconstitutional

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlokchainB 28 Jun

Like Fauci?

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

Best example is EPA or SEC

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

I change my answer. It will affect Fauci and his successors at NIH

Adversely for them

Every 3 letter agency will be affected. And 4 letters too

139 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 28 Jun

The timing isn't a coincidence, morning after the debate where so much was discussed around SCOTUS rulings

Judge appointments matter

Patriots in control

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Supreme Court term ends in June. Today is the last business day of the month.

Court resumes in October

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 28 Jun

October

Surprise!

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

Maybe but probably not from the Supreme Court

They start hearing cases in October but don’t release decisions and opinions until June

95 sats \ 6 replies \ @freetx 28 Jun

Time to force the lazy congress-critters to start writing laws again! Time prevent them outsourcing their jobs....

This is great news!

59 sats \ 5 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

Exactly what I think. Congress doesn't make law anymore. Talk about ending democracy. That happened a while ago, at least in this respect.

85 sats \ 4 replies \ @freetx 28 Jun

Yep, they orchestrated the best scam in the history.

Collect millions in lobbying fees
Write bill that says: We hereby declare that the Secretary of Agency X will make all decisions
When resulting law is a complete disaster, throw your hands up and say "those darn bureaucrats messed everything up!"

This should massively slow their ability to create new laws.

Whats really curious about this: What going to happen with all the existing "outsourced laws"....how will that be managed?

74 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Federal judges also gave regulators too much leeway because of the Chevron decision in 1984, written by justice Stevens.

They now have a new framework to adjudicate disputes between EPA and private companies and citizens.

Is that a puddle in your front yard? That puddle is dirty , violation of clean water act. Penalty is 9000 dollars per day until you clean your front yard puddle.

These agencies engage in extortion. The process is the punishment and vice versa

32 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

I don't know. I would really love to hear your take once you collect information.

163 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 28 Jun

From a 10 min skim of the decision, it appears that all this revolves around APA (Administrative Procedure Act) - this was an act of Congress in 1946 that mandated that all statutory decisions of any agencies rule making must ultimately be adjudicated by the court.

So it appears that if an existing agency rule is in contention and was previously decided by via the agencies interpretation of law, then that rule is now "up for grabs" and could be sent to courts to solve.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

https://x.com/mjs_dc/status/1806696021952442808?s=46

150 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 28 Jun

Checks and balances return. Lots of good news recently. It's almost like we'll get our shit together just in time to hit rock bottom.

127 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 28 Jun

You should see how the bootlickers at HN are reacting.....they are positively panicked about this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949

76 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

I’m reading some of the comments : they are almost as bad as Reddit

In 30 years we won’t have clean drinking water

This is likely the next Citizens United

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 29 Jun

My wife somehow got on moveon.org mailing list and its pretty entertaining how unhinged they are. They call the trumpets nuts but these people are just as bad with crazy ideas of how bad the other side is.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

I was on their list in 2004.

Yahoo mail lol

28 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 29 Jun

These are people that have been programmed to repeat talking points instead of think. They also are terrified of losing democracy when what they are are terrified of losing is a technocratic state.

The idea that the only way we can have clean water is to give a small number of bureaucrats massive power is absurdly anti democratic.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Jun

Thanks for this. Keep em coming!

76 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 28 Jun

Great news! With elections and America struggling with a few social niggles, it may very well defind the course of Amerca's future..

105 sats \ 3 replies \ @JesseJames 29 Jun

The end of ATF as we know it, methinks. What your take on it Counselor? :-)

85 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Jun

They can’t issue any more edicts or change the definition of an assault rifle or machine gun

Or high capacity magazine? 10 rounds is too small. Most novices need at least 20 bullets to defend themselves against an assailant

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Jun

I think @kepford has more knowledge about the practical effects of this than me. We should also get @freetx 's perspective, since he knows the nuts and bolts of how this all works.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 29 Jun

That sounds amazing but I doubt it.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @SZA8FRBE26Z4N 28 Jun freebie

The deep state isn't going anywhere. It's baked into democracy.

85 sats \ 0 replies \ @DEADBEEF 28 Jun

This is going to be huge! Hopefully this makes Congress actually do something instead of farming it off to unelected bureaucrats.

64 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Summary of the decision :

The Supreme Court has overruled the Chevron doctrine, which previously required courts to defer to "permissible" agency interpretations of statutes even when the court read the statute differently. [1]

The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. [1]

The Court acknowledged that the holdings of prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework are still subject to statutory stare decisis, meaning their specific outcomes remain valid despite the change in interpretive methodology. [1] However, mere reliance on Chevron is not enough to justify overruling a statutory precedent. [1]

The Court rejected the dissent's argument that judges are not experts in the field of legal interpretation, stating that interpreting the law has been the "province and duty of the judicial department" for over 200 years. [1]

Sources [1] 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024)

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

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1806755967637528762.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

108 sats \ 10 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 28 Jun

I just read this related article and was going to share it.

Supreme Court ruling kneecaps federal regulators

The Supreme Court’s move to overturn a doctrine known as Chevron deference will completely change how environmental and consumer protections are decided.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/28/24180118/supreme-court-chevron-deference-decision-opinion

59 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 28 Jun

Supreme Court ruling kneecaps federal regulators

Worded another way. Supreme Court checks the power of unelected bureaucrats power. Impact is that the US is less technocratic and more democratic.

What always kills me about democrats and republicans is that they both seem to freak out when the opposite is in power but when power is decentralized more they also freak out. Its almost like they have no principle other than power to enforce their moral views.

21 sats \ 8 replies \ @freetx 28 Jun

Worded another way. Supreme Court checks the power of unelected bureaucrats power.

Its hard to know how far this is going to be taken...but it has the potential to radically reshape everything.

SEC, KYC Banking, AML, etc...etc...

Are these actual 'laws' or are they dictates from bureaucrats?

Reference tutorial for politicians:

120 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

Hopefully knees will be capped early and often

Chevron doctrine gave regulators the unconstitutional authority to make up rules and set penalties without congressional oversight.

Regulators are not legislators or judges

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

https://x.com/govrondesantis/status/1806710055636484247?s=46

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 28 Jun

Desantis is probably right that this, by itself, is not a total fix.

One possible way this plays out is that Congress keeps on doing same thing. Agencies keep on doing same thing. Only now they put onus on public to sue to achieve legal clarification (if you have a $1M+ to spend on lawyers).

So yeah, a step in the right direction but not a silver bullet.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @026180d3a3 28 Jun

Most of this is a discussion due to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is not a constitutional entity.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 28 Jun

They aren't actually laws. I'm not well versed in legal theory. Natural law, administrative regulation, legislative "laws". When I say law I mean the broad sense of something with the threat of violence. If I am actually talking about legit laws those would be natural laws that exist outside of all states.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 28 Jun

The administrative state needs to be chopped in half at least

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 28 Jun

It needs to be eliminated completely but I'd be thrilled with even 25%. Not going to happen. Both parties build it because that's incentives.