Locator: 48019CHEVRON.
From Bloomberg Law overnight:
THE DEATH OF CHEVRON will increase difficulties for President Joe Biden’s administration at a time when it’s looking to cement policy goals ahead of the November election.
- The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision
stripping federal agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous laws
makes it tougher for the administration to defend its biggest policy
ambitions, including regulations issued in recent months to mitigate
climate change, forgive student debt, and crack down on “junk fees,” Courtney Rozen reports.
- New Reality: Biden,
who reiterated policy promises during a shaky debate performance
Thursday, must contend with a reality that opponents now have fresh
ammunition to pursue arguments that certain regulatory actions overstep
the authority Congress gave to federal agencies. “This is as extreme an
overruling of Chevron as anybody could have anticipated,” said Sharon
Block, a Harvard Law School professor and former Biden-era leader of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “I don’t see really any
remaining respect for the expertise of agencies.” Read More
- The impact of the Chevron doctrine’s demise
will be lessened by years of high court skepticism undercutting the
precedent, and also because judicial review of agency action has already
grown more searching amid the rise of the major questions doctrine,
Christopher Walker, an administrative law professor at the University of
Michigan, told Jennifer Hijazi and Robert Iafolla.
Still, the decision alters the regulatory landscape. It “takes an
argument out of the quiver of agency lawyers and puts new arguments in
the quiver” for industry challengers, said Nathan Richardson, a
professor at Jacksonville University College of Law. Read More
- Also Read: Blockbuster Ruling Seals Long Gorsuch Quest to Gut Agency Power
- Hill Hiring:
The justices also put the onus on lawmakers to become better versed in
regulatory matters and to hire and retain expert staff needed to craft
the complex regulatory legislation that will be expected in a post-Chevron
world. Congressional staff are largely early in their career and lack
the expertise, such as a law degree, for more technical work, Zach C. Cohen reports. Read More
**********************
The Problem
Link here.
Chevron:
Chevron deference is the latitude federal judges give agencies over how
to interpret the statutes they administer when a dispute arises. Some 40
years ago, the Supreme Court articulated a relatively simple two-part
test. First, the judges examine the wording and the context of the
statute in question to see if Congress’s intent is clear. If it is, then
the matter is settled: The agency is obliged to follow the letter of
the law.
But:
The problem is solved if the US Congress would do its job and write statutory language that is unambiguous.
That's what has most upset folks. The US Congress won't do its job. Roe vs Wade was perhaps the most egregious. Congress had 40 years to codify the court's ruling in Roe vs Wade.
The question comes down to this: would one rather have Congressional acts of law be subject to change / re-interpretation every four years -- or even more often -- through appointed, non-elected, bureaucrats; or, attempt to ensure that the precedent of law, extending back to the founding of the country, takes precedence?
If bureaucrats have near-ultimate control, we have four branches of government. The US Supreme Court rightly confirmed there are three branches of government. Both sides of the aisle regularly complain the bureaucrats have too much power / not doing enough.
In fact, there's also a fifth branch -- bureaucrats whom the "elected president" cannot fire. We can start with director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
Link here.
**************************
Most Amazing "Fact" About The Chevron Ruling
I found it amazing that the court took this case, and then when it took this case, the early analysis clearly anticipated how the court would rule.
But most amazing: the actual voting -- 6 - 3.
Two of the three, and perhaps all three of the dissenters are widely accepted to be the least ... well, I'll leave it there for readers to fill in the blank. I've said this before.
