pull down to refresh
64 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jun \ on: SCOTUS Overturns 'Chevron Deference' In Massive Blow To 'Administrative State' news
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.
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.
reply
Sometimes the facts of a case are more persuasive than a novel legal theory
reply
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
reply
Hard cases make bad law
Solution: avoid hard cases lol
reply
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/
reply