Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
Two
monumental rulings (really 3, but 2 of them pertain to the same thing) out of SCOTUS today.
First up: As anticipated, the
Chevron doctrine is dead.
In
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commercehttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451... (can't find
Restless)
...the Supreme Court has changed how federal agencies can go about rulemaking: They can't do it unless Congress has given them the authority to:
The Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question
whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 467 U. S. 837, should be overruled or clarified. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at
843. In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners
to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U. S. C. §1801 et seq., which
incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551
et seq.
Held: 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. Pp. 7–35.Roberts writes for the majority:
Many or perhaps
most statutory ambiguities may be unintentional. And when courts
confront statutory ambiguities in cases that do not involve agency interpretations or delegations of authority, they are not somehow relieved of their obligation to independently interpret the statutes. Instead of declaring a particular party’s reading “permissible” in such a
case, courts use every tool at their disposal to determine the best reading of the statute and resolve the ambiguity. But in an agency case as
in any other, there is a best reading all the same—“the reading the
court would have reached” if no agency were involved. Chevron, 467
U. S., at 843, n. 11. It therefore makes no sense to speak of a “permissible” interpretation that is not the one the court, after applying all
relevant interpretive tools, concludes is best.
Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided
because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory
ambiguities. Courts do. Boom. There goes a lot of the administrative state in one shot.
Another significatnt decision today was
City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson, which was an attempt to reverse a 9th Circuit ruling that declared that removal of homeless camps on public land constituted cruel and unusual punishment. In this case Gorsuch writes:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175...Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the
public policy responses required to address it. The question this case
presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to
handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370
U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting). The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.
Pp. 34–35. Indeed. Those of us on the west coast have had to put up with tent camps all over our parks and cities for years thanks to the 9th Circuit's ruling. Now we have a chance at reclaiming our public spaces.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Boom. There goes a lot of the administrative state in one shot.
Remember this?
"Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time, the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means."
See how much you've changed? Judges each have their own ideology which influences them, and they generally aren't going to understand the practicalities necessary for different administrations - Justice Dept vs EPA are very different.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Boom. There goes a lot of the administrative state in one shot.
A bad decision. You simply cannot administer the vast and complex modern US government without delegating rule-making to agencies. The laws are passed by Congress, but they are in no way capable of handling all the detailed rule making necessary to implement those laws.
This ain't the wild west. To think we can have a decent country to live in without reasonable rules and regulations is nonsense. This RW Supreme Court is setting our country back...way back.
Oh, but the courts are going to adjudicate this mess? Ridiculous.
No. of Recommendations: 2
A bad decision. You simply cannot administer the vast and complex modern US government without delegating rule-making to agencies. The laws are passed by Congress, but they are in no way capable of handling all the detailed rule making necessary to implement those laws.
The decision does not prohibit agencies from engaging in rule-making. It undoes the presumption of correctness that applies to their interpretation of statutes. Chevron said that where statutes are ambiguous, courts should defer to what the agencies thought those statutes meant, rather than trying to resolve the ambiguity independently. Rule-making wasn't at issue, except to the extent that rules are often the subject of these types of disputes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The decision does not prohibit agencies from engaging in rule-making. It undoes the presumption of correctness that applies to their interpretation of statutes. Chevron said that where statutes are ambiguous, courts should defer to what the agencies thought those statutes meant, rather than trying to resolve the ambiguity independently. Rule-making wasn't at issue, except to the extent that rules are often the subject of these types of disputes.
Thanks Albaby1. But won't this decision mean that there will be many more interventions by courts in things they have no expertise in? And those who don't like particular regulations will be tying agency managers up in court cases and preventing effective implementation of laws passed by Congress?
No. of Recommendations: 1
The decision does not prohibit agencies from engaging in rule-making. It undoes the presumption of correctness that applies to their interpretation of statutes. Chevron said that where statutes are ambiguous, courts should defer to what the agencies thought those statutes meant, rather than trying to resolve the ambiguity independently. Rule-making wasn't at issue, except to the extent that rules are often the subject of these types of disputes.
Yup, this. All this does is restore the pathway that's normally there when you want to challenge a law, i.e. via the courts.
No. of Recommendations: 6
But won't this decision mean that there will be many more interventions by courts in things they have no expertise in? And those who don't like particular regulations will be tying agency managers up in court cases and preventing effective implementation of laws passed by Congress?
I don't think that's right. For starters, courts have enormous expertise in interpreting statutes - for federal appellate courts, it's a huge part of their job, and they do it all the time. And most rules of any consequence or that deal with contestable interpretations of statutory authority end up getting litigated anyway - and certainly of late, since Chevron has been whittled away at for the last several years.
That doesn't mean it won't have an effect. Agencies will lose some of those cases now, since they don't have the presumption. It's likely that some more cases will be brought, and agencies will likely be a little less aggressive in how far they push their interpretation of statutes. Whether that helps or hinders "effective implementation" of the statutes is something reasonable minds can disagree with.
No. of Recommendations: 5
That doesn't mean it won't have an effect. Agencies will lose some of those cases now, since they don't have the presumption. It's likely that some more cases will be brought, and agencies will likely be a little less aggressive in how far they push their interpretation of statutes. Whether that helps or hinders "effective implementation" of the statutes is something reasonable minds can disagree with.
Frankly, I expect corporate America to view this as “open season on pushing the envelope”, and attempts at enforcement will be narrowed by fear and/or by “executive action” eliminating enforcement budgets, not to mention pile-up at the legal front. Which will take years to resolve, rather than an accelerated decision (slow tho some might be) via regulatory agency.
“Give them an inch”, my mother used to say…
No. of Recommendations: 2
Frankly, I expect corporate America to view this as “open season on pushing the envelope”, and attempts at enforcement will be narrowed by fear and/or by “executive action” eliminating enforcement budgets, not to mention pile-up at the legal front. Which will take years to resolve, rather than an accelerated decision (slow tho some might be) via regulatory agency.
And if Trump is our next POTUS he plans to eviscerate our merit based civil service and install his corrupt cronies, not just at the highest levels of the bureaucracy but deep into the ranks of the civil service. Regulations to protect the environment, consumers etc will be set back many decades.
As Mussolini said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Seems like where we are headed.
