Tweet
Probably the most important SCOTUS decision outside of the overturn of Roe in the last several decades.
A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company. But here's the thing: federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They simply decided to start doing it in 2013. But why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?
Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.
It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab during covid, or be fired. No law gave them that authority, they just made it up. It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun". It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".
It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force people and companies to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts". Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go. That's what Chevron Deference was.
It was flagrantly uncconstitutional, and caused immeasurable harm to everyone. Now it's gone and politicians are having a hernia over its removal because it removes power from their unelected agency bureaucrats.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...be415ceaf8d665
A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company. But here's the thing: federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They simply decided to start doing it in 2013. But why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?
Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.
It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab during covid, or be fired. No law gave them that authority, they just made it up. It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun". It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".
It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force people and companies to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts". Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go. That's what Chevron Deference was.
It was flagrantly uncconstitutional, and caused immeasurable harm to everyone. Now it's gone and politicians are having a hernia over its removal because it removes power from their unelected agency bureaucrats.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...be415ceaf8d665
The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision
The Supreme Court on Friday upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections, delivering a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests.
The court’s six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives who have been motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion. The liberal justices were in dissent.
The case was the conservative-dominated court’s clearest and boldest repudiation yet of what critics of regulation call the administrative state.
Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in challenges that could be spawned by the high court’s ruling. The Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer had warned such a move would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”
The heart of the Chevron decision says federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details when laws aren’t crystal clear. Opponents of the decision argued that it gave power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.
The Supreme Court on Friday upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections, delivering a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests.
The court’s six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives who have been motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion. The liberal justices were in dissent.
The case was the conservative-dominated court’s clearest and boldest repudiation yet of what critics of regulation call the administrative state.
Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in challenges that could be spawned by the high court’s ruling. The Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer had warned such a move would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”
The heart of the Chevron decision says federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details when laws aren’t crystal clear. Opponents of the decision argued that it gave power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.
, then I win.
Comment