What Was Chevron Deference? (2023)

Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border, because they interpreted the US constitution to mean anyone on US &quot;soil&quot; to mean: not literally on the US &quot;soil&quot;, though only once you cross the border. Nice self-serving interpretation.<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aclu.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;constitution-100-mile-border-zone" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aclu.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;constitution-100-mile-border-...</a> - second point above the fold.<p>Chevron is an American tragedy. It&#x27;s fixed and should be fixed forever.

Kagan&#x27;s dissent is pretty damning. Essentially breaks the way modern government works, long term. Imagine a corporation challenging the EPA&#x27;s right to limit PFAS, because Congress didn&#x27;t explicitly carve it out in the original legislation. Practically speaking, it also makes the courts the supreme lay of the land when it comes to regulations, since they will have the power to challenge or overrule basically anything and congress is perpetually gridlocked for a generation. In addition, they can reinterpret anything congress passes ex post facto as being too ambiguous.<p>Some judge in Texas might allow a company to dump chemicals, because they are ignorant of chemistry or listened to the corporate experts trotted out to explain why forever chemicals are fine.<p>None of these changes are for the good of the people, long term.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;newrepublic.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;183269&#x2F;elena-kagan-supreme-court-chevron-ruling-dissent" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;newrepublic.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;183269&#x2F;elena-kagan-supreme-cour...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courthousenews.com&#x2F;after-scathing-kagan-dissent-experts-warn-of-fallout-from-chevron-overturn&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courthousenews.com&#x2F;after-scathing-kagan-dissent-...</a><p>You can read the entire passage here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;23pdf&#x2F;22-451_7m58.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;23pdf&#x2F;22-451_7m58.pdf</a>

Would I be right to assume this means more regulatory lawsuits not fewer?

Not specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary.<p>I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.

&gt; <i>The Chevron deference doctrine or just “Chevron deference” was limited to cases where a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue is implicit rather than explicit</i><p>This is the first time I&#x27;ve heard this specific dimension about it. Am I correct in understanding that if the law <i>explicitly</i> delegates to an administrative agency, that&#x27;s a different scenario?<p>I&#x27;ve read all about how the Chevron defense keeps the government functioning because we don&#x27;t want Congress to have to decide every little thing in the laws, and to let the experts in the agency figure out the details. But it sounds like if the law explicitly says &quot;XYZ to be determined by Agency ABC&quot; then that&#x27;s not something covered by the Chevron defense? Have there been lawsuits against agencies in that case? If not, why not? And does that mean the answer going forward is for Congress to be explicit about what they&#x27;re delegating and to whom? That doesn&#x27;t seem so bad, but maybe I&#x27;m misunderstanding what it&#x27;s saying here.

Chevron deference was abused to circumvent the inability of congress to make laws that were too politically divisive. Eventually sustainability regulations were enacted through these measures when this should have first been explicitly permitted.

Seems to me that if Congress would prefer that any disputes arising from the implementation of their laws be handled by the admistrative agency charged with enforcing it, all they need to do is say so in the law. Not sure how the courts could get around that.

Related:<p><i>Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old &quot;Chevron deference&quot; doctrine</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=40820949">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=40820949</a>

It&#x27;s honestly very difficult for me to understand why some people don&#x27;t prioritize the judiciary&#x27;s constitutional role in interpreting laws and the separation of powers that prevent executive overreach. Sure, this change might lead to more regulatory lawsuits, and we can address that by hiring more judges or drafting clearer laws. I&#x27;d prefer judges interpret laws with the advice of regulatory agency experts, even if it results in the same decisions. The potential increase in government size is a small price to pay for upholding constitutional principles.<p>In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.

This is a step towards a deeper and more established flaw: differing standards of review.<p>It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give &quot;strict scrutiny&quot; to some claims, &quot;intermediate scrutiny&quot; to others, and then apply only a &quot;rational basis&quot; test to others. All parties are entitled to &quot;equal paternal conservation of the law&quot; regardless of their class, be that racial, sex, or otherwise.<p>Early comments by justices in the 50s and 60s stated they never intended to establish such a paradigm, but law schools and lawyers adopted it and essentially foisted it upon the court.

There is no defense of bureaucratic overreach.

It would be great to see the readers of this site step back a bit.<p>Consider the growth of the Administrative State, which amounted to a shift away from elected representatives crafting laws to having those representatives essentially vote on requirements documents.<p>Unelected bureaucrats then turn the legislation into regulations so that the operating system of the government can function.<p>But since its regulation and not legislation, it&#x27;s Constitutional. If you squint.<p>The point is one of scalability. Whether one considers the Administrative State a great idea or not, it came about because it was <i>needful</i>.<p>So, all of the MAGA Conservatives can do victory laps, but if the basic requirement to keep the ship of state on an even keel goes unmet, then stand by for the blowback.<p>I&#x27;d like to see some genuine thought given to how to balance the requirements of modern life with the desire for accountability for decision-makers, which bureaucracy famously obviates.<p>For starters, consider Federalism (Washington DC only manages interstate and international, not individual).<p>A political architecture, like a software architecture, might be improved by such a layered approach, instead of the (substantially) Monolithic State of Washington D.C.

TL;DR;<p>Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine (which the SCOTUS did), the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes.<p>---<p>For example, now the FCC no longer has the power over topics like Net Neutrality ... that is now left up to the courts.<p>---<p>The historical stance on this was, agencies should have authority over ambiguous statutes because they are Subject Matter Experts in the space (you can&#x27;t expect a judge to be a SME on every possible topic).

Not a coincidence that, following a takeover of the judiciary by the right wing, they now aggrandize the power of the Court.

The reactions are strange. The decision appears to have been the single biggest rollback of the parasitic state in modern times. It puts the people and the government on a more equal footing with respect to the law, which is something to celebrate. I will chalk it up to the Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You mean the rug pull on 40 years of legal precedent?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM</a><p>People have to stop looking for the moral high ground in dealing with domestic threats. Two impeachment processes were just filed today...<p>The US politics is so Bonkers... bag of popcorn ready =3