This seems like a terrible idea. It requires Congress to write much larger and more detailed laws at a time when we can barely agree on big picture ideas, and puts more power in the hands of lobbyists. 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 rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it. The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively noncontroversial when it was first introduced in 1984, in recent years conservatives – including some members of the Supreme Court – have called for it to be overruled. The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law. The fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on the rule itself but also to overrule Chevron. Roman Martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices that the Chevron doctrine undermines the duty of courts to say what the law is and violates the federal law governing administrative agencies, which similarly requires courts to undertake a fresh review of legal questions. Under the Chevron doctrine, he observed, even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is “not consistent with the rule of law.”
No more selected agency heads writing federal laws is a good thing... especially when agencies become less than honest and reasonable these days.
The court guy at Vox seemed a bit more skeptical that the votes are there to completely abandon it, but he says it's still the most likely outcome. John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett are unsure if they should crown themselves king and queen.
it would absolutely be a bad idea. They may not explicitly overrule but they will certainly weaken it so much that there may be no real difference
Laws are already written Rick, its all a matter of who gets to interpret them as they are applied, federal agencies delegated to that task filled with people who know something about their role, or elderly judges with law degrees
SCOTUS decisions will harm millions of citizens for decades to come. The herring fishing monitoring equipment should have been cost shared by the regulators by 2/3s. Many marine harvestors/profiters actually appreciate efforts to manage the resources to help provide a sustained supply. Better regulators tax the actual catch. That the buyers/consumers pay for the monitoring equipment.
Yeah, sure, but these "interpretations" often change the meaning of said laws. And all that can be added to these laws by these agencies are the problem.
I'll have to get back to you on just how many times these agencies have misused their power to "interpret" these laws, to the point of harming more than people people, places and things. This will take a long time to fully unpack.
You’d rather now have the courts resolve legislative ambiguities, which would be the result here? The irony (hypocrisy?) that those who for decades have decried “activist judges” are now so willing to give them carte blanche to resolve legislative ambiguities, rather than deferring to agencies with actual technical expertise in the subject matter is somewhat laughable. I get that agencies aren’t perfect but nothing will ever get done if all of this is thrown back to the courts. Are courts really capable of interpreting things like nuclear regulations?
I'd rather that they defer to the original intent of the law, and that's easy to find out since the majority already voted on this law... once upon a time voted on these laws. This means no more legislating for the EPA and the FDA and other abusive agencies. IOW, no more re-interpreting laws by these agencies... good news.
The original intent of those laws was to delegate tasks to a federal agency not the supreme court lol
Mud puddles or small ponds caused by rain on your property are not the state's water, and is not and should never be considered a body of water controlled by the EPA.
Hyperbole. Water bodies are not considered under the state's jurisdiction unless the water level is maintained across seasons and the water is navigable ... look up the significance of "ordinary high water" if you are confused about that.
Public oversight cannot effectively exist without chevron. Nobody can write specifics for that many variables.
Pacific trawlers and long liners fought/fight monitoring with vigor. Primary reason for halibut and king population decimation.
Who does do the interpreting in your world? No law can consider every possible situation, let alone new technology or solutions.
How can congress write a law that accounts for every little variable or detail that arises from enforcing a law?
