Chevron Doctrine case being heard by SCOTUS

[BobbyV]

This case should be something to keep an eye on . . .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-herring-federal-agencies/

There are many who feel this will completely remove an Agency's ability to regulate. I'm not sure I see it that way as long as they "regulate" within the confines of their clearly defined directives and don't attempt to play outside the lines with new rules without Congressional approval. I think they run into problems when they take advantage of Chevron and drastically change historical interpretations of regulations based on the whims of a new Department Secretary or POTUS.

 

[Perplexed]

Chevron deference is what just about every executive agency uses to issue rules and regulations within (often very vague) Congressional guidelines. Sometimes these guidelines are ignored, which is why the ATF is running fast and loose with their latest rules - 80% receivers, bump stocks, and pistol braces, to name a few. EPA getting smacked down for their liberal use of the Chevron deference in the W. Va vs. EPA decision handed down by SCOTUS last summer sets a potentially powerful precedent for reeling in these agencies.

 

[BobbyV]

Chevron deference is what just about every executive agency uses to issue rules and regulations within (often very vague) Congressional guidelines. Sometimes these guidelines are ignored, which is why the ATF is running fast and loose with their latest rules - 80% receivers, bump stocks, and pistol braces, to name a few. EPA getting smacked down for their liberal use of the Chevron deference in the W. Va vs. EPA decision handed down by SCOTUS last summer sets a potentially powerful precedent for reeling in these agencies.

Right. But do you see this has making it so those agencies can't enforce anything without Congressional approval or only requiring approval for those implicit interpretations that seem to change with each new Department head and administration?

 

[edl]

Right. But do you see this has making it so those agencies can't enforce anything without Congressional approval or only requiring approval for those implicit interpretations that seem to change with each new Department head and administration?

The goal will hopefully be that the congress has to quit writing vague laws. They will have to legislate. Then the agencies will write rules BASED ON THE LAW, not “their interpretation”. The clearer the law, the less ambiguity, the clearer the rule, and the less interpretation required or allowed by the agency tasked with writing the law. Hopefully!

 

[BobbyV]

The goal will hopefully be that the congress has to quit writing vague laws. They will have to legislate. Then the agencies will write rules BASED ON THE LAW, not “their interpretation”. The clearer the law, the less ambiguity, the clearer the rule, and the less interpretation required or allowed by the agency tasked with writing the law. Hopefully!

From your mouth to the SCOTUS ears . . .

 

[Glocktogo]

As someone who enforces federal regs, I can tell you that some of them are terribly written. Some are so bad they're virtually unenforceable. In some cases, I think that WAS the intent. Sometimes Congress passes hot garbage just so they can say they "did something", without actually doing anything at all. That's because sometimes the electorate demand laws which do not comport with the Constitution or established law. Rather than grow a spine and explain why such laws can't be passed, congrescritters just pass this garbage and it stinks up the whole process.

The rub comes when an agency or department takes what was intended to be unenforceable and tries to make it enforceable. The originators of the language are often long gone by then and actual intent becomes irrelevant. When I have to examine a case, I try to consider the totality of the circumstance and what the intended or actual harm is. On a few rare occasions, someone will get away with doing something bad because the language written by Congress is simply not applicable. That's when I default to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted."

There are more than a few federal regulators who don't embrace that philosophy, which is why the Chevron Defense needs to fall. Also, Trump's deregulation doctrine was one of the few beneficial EO's passed in recent history (Executive Order 13771 which stipulates which stipulates that “for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations [must] be identified for elimination.”). It doesn't guarantee that bad regs are replaced with more beneficial ones, but it certainly doesn't hurt!

 

[commandcomm]

The problem here is the Congress is letting SCOTUS do its dirty work. Congress (really lobbyists) write laws that allows the agencies to create regulation known as the CFR (code of federal regulations).

Congress is the one branch of government that can reign in the regulations, but refuses to and allows the executive agencies to create these regulations on their behalf.

 

[edl]

The problem here is the Congress is letting SCOTUS do its dirty work. Congress (really lobbyists) write laws that allows the agencies to create regulation known as the CFR (code of federal regulations).

Congress is the one branch of government that can reign in the regulations, but refuses to and allows the executive agencies to create these regulations on their behalf.

Boy you said it……. Writing legislation is actually pretty hard I think. But they do such a bad job, I’m glad that they’re dysfunctional so they don’t keep passing bad legislation!

 

[xtremerange]

All the commentators seem to take a black-or-white view of Chevron, viz the Fisheries Regulation case.
There is a middle ground that no one talks about that I think would be a likely outcome of SCOTUS.

Simply, once a regulation is created based on executive interpretation, it cannot be substantially altered without legislative action.

In the fisheries case, that means the agency was correct in initially applying specific actions to regulate within the context of the original legislation. There is a Congressional review process covering that. Though very weak.

The problem came when, decades later, the executive agency re-interpreted unchanged law.

SCOTUS will likely (IMHO) say once a regulation is created, it cannot be changed without Congressional changes.

This fits with our legal tradition.

 

[Glocktogo]

All the commentators seem to take a black-or-white view of Chevron, viz the Fisheries Regulation case.
There is a middle ground that no one talks about that I think would be a likely outcome of SCOTUS.

Simply, once a regulation is created based on executive interpretation, it cannot be substantially altered without legislative action.

In the fisheries case, that means the agency was correct in initially applying specific actions to regulate within the context of the original legislation. There is a Congressional review process covering that. Though very weak.

The problem came when, decades later, the executive agency re-interpreted unchanged law.

SCOTUS will likely (IMHO) say once a regulation is created, it cannot be changed without Congressional changes.

This fits with our legal tradition.

By that interpretation, wouldn't the administrative agency "reinterpretation" be automatically null and void?

I could definitely see the Roberts led court crawfishing out of it this way. That's just the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Too many feckless people in charge of the nation.