Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
- Nov 25, 2021
- 15,005
- 12,097
This is AI's explanation of the ruling:
On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Chevron doctrine, which had been in place for 40 years, required federal courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous federal laws. The ruling in Loper Bright shifts the power to interpret statutes back to federal courts, and requires them to independently determine if an agency's actions are consistent with the statute and Congress's intent.
It was crazy that the courts ruled that they themselves must defer to federal agencies, instead of looking at the law and precedent. What would have been the purpose of that other than to allow agencies free reign to make up regulations that can then be enforced as if they are the law, or in compliance with the law, and we just have to take their word for the latter?
Now what we need is a case that is more specific that any regulation by a federal agency must include the specific part of the law that it puportedly enforces.
There is a reason that the executive and legislative branch are separate. We don't need the executive passing quasi-laws and enforcing them as if they are real laws. Now we need the judicial branch to step up and tell them so explicitely.
Thank God we have a Supreme Court that may well do that.
On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Chevron doctrine, which had been in place for 40 years, required federal courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous federal laws. The ruling in Loper Bright shifts the power to interpret statutes back to federal courts, and requires them to independently determine if an agency's actions are consistent with the statute and Congress's intent.
It was crazy that the courts ruled that they themselves must defer to federal agencies, instead of looking at the law and precedent. What would have been the purpose of that other than to allow agencies free reign to make up regulations that can then be enforced as if they are the law, or in compliance with the law, and we just have to take their word for the latter?
Now what we need is a case that is more specific that any regulation by a federal agency must include the specific part of the law that it puportedly enforces.
There is a reason that the executive and legislative branch are separate. We don't need the executive passing quasi-laws and enforcing them as if they are real laws. Now we need the judicial branch to step up and tell them so explicitely.
Thank God we have a Supreme Court that may well do that.