Without it, the ability to challenge the application of regulations - like those of the EPA - in court is significantly increased.
For example - Chevron arose out a re-interpretation of the meaning of the word “source” in an EPA regulation on air pollution. It previously meant “any machine.”
Under Reagan the EPA re-interpreted source to mean “any plant” and not an individual machine. An environmental group sued to have the COURT determine the meaning of the word “source.” The D.C. Circuit ruled the re-interpretation by the EPA was invalid.
So Chevron intervened as a party affected by the outcome and appealed the D.C. Circuit to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said “Look, an agency has the ability to regulate interpret ambiguous rules as it sees fit so long as that’s a reasonable interpretation, and courts must defer to the agency’s decision.”
WITHOUT Chevron, agencies will lose a huge amount of their ability to regulate any number of things as anything not explicitly stated will now be open to court challenge, followed by a judge interpreting the meaning and binding the agency.
Look, I’m a lawyer and I respect the courts and all but…I’m just gonna say, this puts an absurd amount of power over regulatory and administrative policy of the executive branch in the control of the judiciary.
It also wrests away power from the legislature which can't literally state every fucking thing about an agency when it makes the agency. You want this agency to do X, you have to actually fucking state it now even if it's something that won't come up for decades because you can't predict the future.
I'm looking at this decision & am seeing a pattern in this SCOTUS. They have been over many decisions now, removing power from Federal agencies, stating that no Congressional law ever gave them that power, instead Congress seceded it. Am I wrong to think that this court wants Congress to do its job?
I agree that Congress has been giving away its power to the Executive branch, or that the Executive has just been taking it cause it can't get Congress to act like it wants to, for the last 40+ years. The problem is Congress is so broken, nothing will be agreed on, but shit still needs to happen.
Except they’re not really saying “Congress isn’t defining things well enough!” That’s rendering something void for vagueness (see FCC v. Fox)
What they’re saying is “If Congress isn’t explicit about what it means judges, not the agency composed of experts, get to determine what Congress meant.”
Proposal:
Treat Congress like a Papal Conclave:
Lock them in the building with no escape (and no access to social media or cameras to play to) until they've finished their jobs for the session.
Either things get done or they start eliminating each other, so it's a win-win really.
Would you like to see the backlog that will develop if Congress has to define the word “pollutant” before the EPA can have the authority to regulate it?
I mean with the bump stock decision, it was an agency that decided they were illegal & SCOTUS said that the bump stock didn't meet the definition of creating an automatic weapon as stated by the plain text of the law. They said CONGRESS had to redefine it. Common sense tells you a bump stock is bad.
You are absolutely right, but am I wrong in believing that SCOTUS is doing these decisions to remove power from Executive Branch Agencies and is wanting Congress to step up? I don't think that is viable, but it seems that is what the court is wanting to happen. Agencies ARE the experts!
And multiple different judges interpreting them in mutually incompatible ways, and look at that, that means that the Supreme Court gets exercise the executive AND legislative power, rejiggering the statutes and regulations in accordance with its Fox News brain policy judgment
With no chevron deference, the courts are going to get a good 600% uptick in cases.
Guess we'll need to add a lot more courts and add some more supreme court justices while we're at it
