There’s One Big POINTY Reason (and Dozens of Others) to Hope the Supreme Court Shoots Down Chevron

As I write this, we await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the therefore- called Chevron respect ( or theory ). It concerns the authority of federal agencies to perceive laws and turn them into laws that affect almost every American in some way or another. Although it’s not hot, the court may decide the case’s most significant case this year, or at any time. &nbsp,

Chevron respect allows the courts, through a two- move method, to submit to “reasonable” operational agency interpretations if a national statute is vague or confusing. It paves the way for company exploits to, in essence, make rules under the pretext of rulemaking. From health care to immigration to women’s sports to COVID jabs, it gives federal agencies ( and the president in charge ) complete control over everything. &nbsp,

Meghan Bartels at&nbsp, Scientific American&nbsp, warned this week that modifying Chevron would” Make It Harder for Government Agencies to Use Good Science” .&nbsp,

Good ( government ) science! Follow the ( government ) science! &nbsp, Where have we heard that before? She lamented that reeling in Chevron threatens “scientific expertise” .&nbsp,

Judicial respect to agencies ‘ expertise is critical to how U. S. health and economic regulation, in particular, already works. For instance, the FDA already uses its judgment to relax approval for treatments for rare diseases, such as by allowing historic records to serve as a substitute for a power team in a clinical trial, according to Reshma Ramachandran, an associate professor at the Yale School of Medicine with a background in public policy. And the agency’s ability to regulate innovative products —such as vaping systems and biological testing marketed directly to consumers—can depend on the confusion in conditions such as “medical equipment” in legislation from Congress.

Ramachandran worries that if Chevron deference falls, &nbsp, the FDA will become more cautious&nbsp, out of fear of being taken to court and losing. She says,” I believe that government organizations will be much more hesitant to follow science and will instead make their decisions based on the political and legal landscape.” New treatments might take longer to be approved, and on the other end of the spectrum, people could be exposed to dangerous or misleading products that were able to evade regulation, she worries.

Doniger uses examples of the kind of situation where Chevron deference can allow organizations to lead on issues that are firmly within their purview but about which Congress has yet to develop thorough legislation, as well as the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions as pollutants.

Make no mistake: Public bureaucrats are terrified that Chevron&nbsp, could “fall” and curtail the immense power they now hold. In an article published on SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe, she describes the oral arguments in the two cases brought by commercial fishing companies who oppose a rule interpretation that might decide Chevron‘s fate.

The three liberal justices on the court voted in favor of preserving the doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan repeatedly argued that federal agencies are better suited than courts to resolve ambiguities in federal statutes because of their scientific and technical expertise.

… Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kagan. She doubted whether there can be a “best” interpretation of a law when the justices “routinely disagree” about a law’s meaning. The real question, she said, is who makes the choice about what an ambiguous law means. And if the court needs a “tie- breaker”, she continued, why should n’t it defer to the agency, with its expertise?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the Chevron doctrine has a significant significance. According to her, Congress gives federal agencies the authority to make policy decisions, such as filling gaps or defining terms in the statute. However, she predicted that courts will have to make those kinds of policy decisions if Chevron is overturned and organizations no longer have that power. ]Emphasis added]

Understand that power is everything and who should have it. Fair to say that neither party has relied on Chevron or federal agencies to push bills through Congress. It makes a mockery of the separation of powers established in the Constitution, but it works —for as long as a president is in office. Every time a new president is elected, all the little hamsters in the federal agencies start implementing new regulations. &nbsp,

Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued in oral arguments that Chevron “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in,” leading to “massive change” to a range of policies. &nbsp,

Bureaucrats and attorneys will argue that reversing Chevron would stifle the “experts” in charge of interpreting the 200, 000+ pages of the Federal Register. The question they—and all of us—should be asking is why there are so many federal regulations. Fewer federal regulations would mean fewer bureaucrats would rule over regular Americans, those of us who ca n’t afford to hire an attorney to change the oil in our cars or make decisions about our healthcare. &nbsp,

Yes, if Chevron “falls”, there will likely be a blizzard of lawsuits that could paralyze the court systems. But the answer is n’t to continue to empower the federal government. The answer is to reduce the size of government, reduce the size of the Federal Register, and disempower the “experts” who write all those rules. Maybe a Chevron blizzard—a crisis, if you will—could be the impetus Congress needs to roll back federal regulations and send issues back to state and local governments —or families—where they rightly belong. I’m not going to get my hopes up, but you never know. &nbsp,

Stay tuned to PJ Media. When it is published, we will notify you of the ruling ( as well as other significant ones that are anticipated this week or next ).

Source credit