A Huge SCOTUS Ruling Today

[Ozarks Tom]

I've railed against the unelected bureaucratic "experts" for longer than I can remember.  They take vague laws passed by Congress and interpret them any way their agendas would like.  I'm mentioned here this case would be decided this SCOTUS session, and thank God it was decided in a way that neuters those bureaucrats' arbitrary regulations that carry the weight of laws, including criminal penalties and fines.

This could reverse over a hundred years of tyranny by anonymous cubicle dwellers with no accountability to anyone.

Today, the Supreme Court voted to overrule the so-called Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision. The ruling is a HUGE victory for those who hate the massive power the administrative state has amassed in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded: "The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled."

In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say. It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to COVID jabs.

pjmedia.com/paula-bolyard/2024/06/28/breaking-supreme-court-rules-on-chevron-doctrine-n4930001

[solargeek]

Ozarks Tom , WOW Oh WOW Oh WOW

Yippee, YES! Great. So many decisions could now be overturned but they did explicitly decide against that as total chaos would rain down on Enviromental laws that benefit us, safety laws and such.

But going forward no more catering to the Agencies and their influental personnel to curry favor on an important issue (thank goodness the groups within the firms I worked at did not do so but lots of others did) - all ok under the APA.

[David!]

Ah so maybe these federal agencies can no longer be judge and jury?

[laurazone5]

I ain't so book smart, lol.

How would you explain this to a 10 year old?

[farmrbrown]

Jun 28, 2024 20:58:43 GMT David! said:

Ah so maybe these federal agencies can no longer be judge and jury?

Yeah, that's pretty close to what this case was about. In my researching of IRS cases the Chevron deference/doctrine was one of the major precedents used to clobber taxpayers who tried to fight unfair decisions of the Tax Court by appealing to the "real" federal courts including SCOTUS. As Ozarks Tom, indicated the Chevron doctrine allowed any ambiguity in the written law to justify whatever decisions that federal agencies decided to enforce. IOW if it wasn't spelled out in big block letters, the IRS, EPA, DOT, FDA, DOE, etc, etc, could use the powers given to the Executive Branch in Article II of the Constitution to enforce the interpretation they saw fit. Without any written limit to legally contradict that power, they could make up the rules as they go along and when you appealed it, you were shot down in flames.




Bottom paragraph in OP:

In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say. It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to COVID jabs.

[solargeek]

farmrbrown, Yes to all you said. EPA especially pushed unfair and probably wrong costs on private and public companies to clean up messes made by THE GOVERNMENT AT GOVERNMENT SUPERFUND SITES.

[Ozarks Tom]

laurazone5, Probably the best example of wrongful interpretation of a law would be the EPA's constant creep of the Navigational Waters Act. The act was meant to control truly navigable waters, rivers and major streams from pollution and unlawful diversions. But, the EPA has stretched their authority to include low level areas on ranches/homesteads that hold water seasonally, and to the point of cattle watering ponds being under their control. We're talking about financial ruin for some ranchers and homesteaders who might fill in a low area, or divert a spring to water their cattle (not a river, a stream on their own property).

These agencies are full of zealots whose powers previously were unchecked. Just write a regulation that on its surface sounds innocuous but in reality affects thousands, but it's law.

[David!]

I’ve had some experience with “wetlands” and the governments at will and ever changing determination of such. Heck I’m scared to water a potted plant because the bureaucracy might force me to abandon the planter and pay hefty fines

[farmrbrown]

Jun 28, 2024 23:31:12 GMT David! said:

I’ve had some experience with “wetlands” and the governments at will and ever changing determination of such. Heck I’m scared to water a potted plant because the bureaucracy might force me to abandon the planter and pay hefty fines

Look into 'grow lights'. Under lock and key, no worries, no federal furries. If they ask, hand them some literature from The Green Revolution, give'em some brownies and send them on their way.

[mzgarden]

So (sorry to ask), does this mean - no new over-reach or does this now make previous over-reach fair game for law suits?

[Ozarks Tom]

mzgarden, From what I understand of this ruling, previous onerous regulations/laws by agencies can be challenged in courts as to their reasonable interpretation of the original law passed by Congress. In the past, there was no redress except going back to the agencies and asking for relief. As the article says, this will clog the federal courts for years with all the suits filed against those agencies asking they prove their reasonable interpretations. Look to see courts turning those agencies into ghost towns when those regulations are found unreasonable.

Over time those people currently employed to enforce those ridiculous edicts will be let go, and the federal workforce will shrink exponentially without those cretins writing new regulations/laws.

A great day for America. A huge step in bringing common sense back to a society overridden with useless, agenda driven edicts.

[joebill]

Do not forget for an INSTANT the BATF formerly had the right to pass new gun laws "As the director shall determine". NOW they will have to defend them in court of abandon them altogether.

We are helped out by the fact that congress is too busy playing grab-a$$ to pass any real laws....Joe

[solargeek]

mzgarden, Ozarks Tom
Actually, SCOTUS is not “generally” allowing a 2nd bite at the apple with this ruling.

Most cases will stand under the legal “stare decisis” doctrine. That doctrine says that you just can’t overturn a case because you learn more in the future, or utterly dismantle an important program or change made based on the case it was decided and now thought to be improperly decided.

“Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court's decision.
www.law.cornell.edu › wex
stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”
. Even some really bad cases will stand

SCOTUS said in the current case,
“By overruling Chevron, though, the Court does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457.

Mere reliance on “Chevron”in past cases cannot constitute a “ ‘special justification’ ” for overruling such a holding.”

So it is likely federal courts will deny a new looking at many huge serious court decisions. Unless they fortuitously find that the “Chevron” doctrine caused the prior cases to be “fatally flawed”.

[David!]

solargeek , When I sue Ozarks Tom , for mental duress and maybe joebill , for questionable jokes I will pay you $11.56 to defend me. 😊 Do you accept partially used WalMart gift cards as payment?

[joebill]

solargeek, UNDERSTOOD, however I see big change or rather LACK of same coming down the road with the dropping of Chevron.

The "progressive" strategy seems to have always been to advance their cause only a degree or so at a time, using past precedent to establish the right to advance further into areas of iron control over damn near everything.

I think that they relied heavily upon the BATF's "right" to declare a gun to be banned to eventually over rule the second amendment, for instance. Now, any move in that direction will require congress to pass a specific law, which in both it's laziness and lack of testicular fortitude is unlikely to ever happen.

Of course, hardly any of us have been keeping track of which queer rulings have been coming from agencies affected by this ruling and which have just sort of evolved.

For instance, WHO decided it was legal to let schoolmarms influence kids into wanting a sex change? Old ruling, I know, but we all know they will try and expand upon it, and will the dropping of Chevron give us a handle on a way to prevent it? .... Big stuff on the way, either way.....Joe