I'm Glad that the Supremes Overturned the "Chevron Doctrine." Now, we Need a Case that Goes Further

[Seymour Flops]

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.

 

[1srelluc]

I think politicians on both sides are acting as if it never happened.....We need to have case after case going to the courts.

Should be plenty of standing available due to all the harm the regulatory agencies have caused Americans.

 

[task0778]

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.

I thought we already had that stipulation. Any time a federal agency wants to impose a new rule or regulation, it has to be published first and announced to the public for debate, questions, or issues with it. Everything a federal agency does has to be rooted in existing law and it's highly likely that somebody will challenge it court. IOW, they just can't make shit up.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I thought we already had that stipulation. Any time a federal agency wants to impose a new rule or regulation, it has to be published first and announced to the public for debate, questions, or issues with it. Everything a federal agency does has to be rooted in existing law and it's highly likely that somebody will challenge it court. IOW, they just can't make shit up.

But, under the Chevron Doctrine, it was the agencies themselves who had the final say in whether a new regulation is or is not rooted in existing law.

No wonder they have been out of control for forty years. They laugh at congressional oversight, priding themselves on not answering questions about what they are doing.

 

[task0778]

But, under the Chevron Doctrine, it was the agencies themselves who had the final say in whether a new regulation is or is not rooted in existing law.

No wonder they have been out of control for forty years. They laugh at congressional oversight, priding themselves on not answering questions about what they are doing.

Well, not exactly. In cases where the law was fairly clear, the courts could and did sometimes rule that the executive agency could not enforce a particular rule/regulation. The Chevron Doctrine was all about cases where the law was ambiguous, and the court could/would side with the agency's interpretation. The SCOTUS ruled that the final say in such ambiguous cases would belong to the courts with no deference to the agency.

Which BTW I approve of. I believe the Executive Branch had entirely too much latitude to do as they pleased, but that puts the onus on the Congress to do a better job of writing or changing laws in the 1st place.