SCOTUS just overturned Chevron deference, GUTTING three-letter agencies

SCOTUS just overturned Chevron deference, GUTTING the three-letter agencies. This is going to affect every area of our lives 🚨

"If the Supreme Court overturns the 40-year-old doctrine known as Chevron deference, it would drastically shrink the power of federal agencies to regulate much of anything at all ...

Nearly 20,000 laws, standards, and protections upon which we rely today were arrived at based on agency deference."

Congress has passed vague laws for decades, saying that bureaucratic agencies can regulate within that framework of certain laws, and then those regulations will become law.

This has been abused by the feds and the deep state since the 1984 ruling.

Now, any regulation passed by the EPA, FDA, ATF, or any three-letter agency won't be automatically law.

Here's part of the SCOTUS ruling:

"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 ..."

These federal agencies no longer get the final say. The courts can decide.

Not the bee

This day keeps getting better and better!

I didn’t even know this case was pending.

A great day for those libertarian minded who detests three letter agencies!

I still fail to see what the real implication of this is..not a lawyer. Sounds like they are saying elected people have to decide stuff and not un-elected pencil necks. How does this affect the three letter mafia groups?

a reply to: pianopraze

Scotusblog

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”

When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.

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. The justices had rebuffed earlier requests (including by one of the same lawyers who argued one of the cases here) to consider overruling Chevron before they agreed last year to take up a pair of challenges to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.

The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.

After two federal courts of appeals rebuffed challenges to the rules, two sets of commercial fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.

The justices took up their appeals, agreeing to address only the Chevron question in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Relentless case but was recused from the Loper-Bright case, presumably because she had heard oral argument in the case while she was still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.)

Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”

Moreover, Roberts observed, even if courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, it can consider that interpretation when it falls within the agency’s purview, a doctrine known as Skidmore deference.

Kagan, who read a summary of her dissent from the bench, was sharply critical of the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. Congress often enacts regulatory laws that contain ambiguities and gaps, she observed, which agencies must then interpet. The question, as she framed it, is “[w]ho decides which of the possible readings” of those laws should prevail?

For 40 years, she stressed, the answer to that question has generally been “the agency’s,” with good reason: Agencies are more likely to have the technical and scientific expertise to make such decisions. By overruling the Chevron doctrine, she concluded, the court has created a “jolt to the legal system.”

But more broadly, Kagan rebuked her colleagues in the majority for what she characterized as a judicial power grab. She lamented that, by overruling Chevron, the court had, in “one fell swoop,” given “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”

Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, applauded the decision. “By ending Chevron deference,” he said in a statement, “the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,”

This is a huge decision and it’s about time.
Those three agencies, FDA EPA ATF, are the worst offenders.
They’ve been making decisions on behalf of their agencies detrimental to the public for decades.
Those bureaucrats needed a huge slap to stop it.
This is the second biggest decision by SCOTUS this year that they’ve fixed. 👍

originally posted by: rdambroso
I still fail to see what the real implication of this is..not a lawyer. Sounds like they are saying elected people have to decide stuff and not un-elected pencil necks. How does this affect the three letter mafia groups?

The constitution delineates powers with checks and balances. These three letter agencies are abortions of power. They unconstitutionally create rules/regulations/laws that are completely unconstitutional because 1. That power is strictly for congress. 2. It has no over-site.

This potentially guts the deep state and returns power/responsibility to Congress and the courts.

This might even lay groundwork for declaring the agencies unconstitutional… but I may just be too hopeful on that one.

It definitely guts their much-abused power.

From same link as above:

Roberts wrote the opinion; however, Thomas gave a concurrence that ought to be read:

"I write separately to underscore a more fundamental problem: Chevron deference also violates our Constitution's separation of powers, as I have previously explained at length ... And, I agree with JUSTICE GORSUCH that we should not overlook Chevron's constitutional defects in overruling it ... To provide "practical and real protections for individual liberty," the Framers drafted a Constitution that divides the legislative, executive, and judicial powers between three branches of Government."

And Gorsuch:

"Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation's founding."

The agencies twisted vague laws to create rules they think are pertinent to what they want them to say. They sometimes do it to help individuals or businesses and other time they use these rules to attack businesses that are in conflict of businesses or people they have been backing. One rule does not fit all, they can add a little twist to the evidence and distort things.

But sometimes their policies can help some businesses legitimately too.

Depending on who is in charge it can be good or it can be bad. So I cannot really judge whether this is bad or good. Lately they have been abusing the system by political alliances and aliances with groups like climate change pushers.

So I am not sure what to believe about this policy, it will be more fair if it is changed in the future I suppose, but then again, there may be no break allowed for a business to bring something up to code if it is not in the law itself.

I don't know how to interpret this change.

a reply to: pianopraze
thanks for the explanation. I guess I would be really happy if I had any faith in congress whatsoever but I don't.

Wow, great news!

So does this ruling take some teeth out of the Patriot Act?

a reply to: rdambroso

Well, now congress can't just pass an ambiguous law, shuffle it off to ATF, EPA,VA, NOAA, etc. and let the unelected bureaucrats decide what the laws say according to their whims. Congress will have to do their job of writing specific laws and being held accountable to the constituency.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The agencies twisted vague laws to create rules they think are pertinent to what they want them to say. They sometimes do it to help individuals or businesses and other time they use these rules to attack businesses that are in conflict of businesses or people they have been backing. One rule does not fit all, they can add a little twist to the evidence and distort things.

But sometimes their policies can help some businesses legitimately too.

Depending on who is in charge it can be good or it can be bad. So I cannot really judge whether this is bad or good. Lately they have been abusing the system by political alliances and aliances with groups like climate change pushers.

So I am not sure what to believe about this policy, it will be more fair if it is changed in the future I suppose, but then again, there may be no break allowed for a business to bring something up to code if it is not in the law itself.

I don't know how to interpret this change.

It is a blow to authoritarian bureaucracy and a return to constitutional checks and balances.

Just because unconstitutional authoritarians made rules you like one day, does not mean they won’t create ones you object to the next.

a reply to: pianopraze

Now, if congress does its job and starts defunding some of these bureaucratic monstrosities, this nation may begin to breathe a little again and the deficit can start to be reduced.

One agency that needs to be defunded completely is the Department of Education. Turn education back to the states.

originally posted by: Hakaiju
Wow, great news!

So does this ruling take some teeth out of the Patriot Act?

Unfortunately no.

That was directly passed by Congress as law.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: pianopraze

One agency that needs to be defunded completely is the Department of Education. Turn education back to the states.

Trump has said he wants to end the DOE

CNN

a reply to: rdambroso

That's the good part.

Congress is so disfunctional, they'll never get anything done. The less they do, the less we get screwed over.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: rickymouse
The agencies twisted vague laws to create rules they think are pertinent to what they want them to say. They sometimes do it to help individuals or businesses and other time they use these rules to attack businesses that are in conflict of businesses or people they have been backing. One rule does not fit all, they can add a little twist to the evidence and distort things.

But sometimes their policies can help some businesses legitimately too.

Depending on who is in charge it can be good or it can be bad. So I cannot really judge whether this is bad or good. Lately they have been abusing the system by political alliances and aliances with groups like climate change pushers.

So I am not sure what to believe about this policy, it will be more fair if it is changed in the future I suppose, but then again, there may be no break allowed for a business to bring something up to code if it is not in the law itself.

I don't know how to interpret this change.

It is a blow to authoritarian bureaucracy and a return to constitutional checks and balances.

Just because unconstitutional authoritarians made rules you like one day, does not mean they won’t create ones you object to the next.

I agree with that. They should write the detailed rules before a law is created which would keep the law from being passed sometimes because congressmen would be afraid if it was detailed they would lose re-elections. These vague laws are used to hide the real design from people a lot.

They need to get rid of WHO. I didn't realize how much they are in charge of all the Green climate change BS, for the WHOLE world. They are evil, EVIL, E V I L

For all the many agendas they are pushing and all all the control they have, they need to be completely disbanded.

How weird that in the same session that this SCOTUS ruled that it's legal to bribe government officials they also make a ruling that tells corporations that if they don't like the way a regulation is being applied to them they can take it to the courts.

All I'll say is that if you're leary about flying in a Boeing jet now, just wait until they get a few judges in their pocket.

Here’s the statement from the Biden minions.
It tells you exactly how good this decision was for the people and not the bureaucracy…

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards.”

Here’s a quick summary of the case that led to the SCOTUS decision…

A National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requires that herring fishing boats allow an additional person on board their small boats to serve as a monitor, tracking compliance with federal regulations. The fishermen must also pay the monitor’s salary of around $700 per day. Overall, the regulation reduces fishing profits by about 20%. Loper Bright Enterprises, a fishing company in New England, and other fisheries sued to challenge this federal government rule, arguing that NMFS lacked statutory authority to force them to pay for these monitors.

a reply to: pianopraze

i always said that the bureaucrats always have had to much power, i'd dare say even as much if not more than representatives and senators.

along with term limits bureaucrats job performance should be evaluated quarterly by something like a jury of 50 people, one from each state and brought to DC on the governments dime, travel to and from home, boarding and fed until the job is done.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Got a link to the decision that allows bribery?? I am curious and wouldn't mind taking a look. If no link the case name will do.