SHOCKER: SCOTUS Delivers a Kill Shot to Big Government

Now, the Supreme Court voted to overturn the therefore- called Chevron respect in a 6- 3 choice. The decision is a HUGE win for those who detest the enormous amount of authority the operational state has accumulated in recent years. &nbsp,

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority,” The Administrative Procedure Act requires judges to exercise their impartial judgment in determining whether an organization has acted within its statutory power,” and judges may hardly defer to an organization interpretation of the law just because a legislation is ambiguous, Chevron is overruled.

In the most simple terms, the Chevron respect ( also called the Chevron&nbsp, theory ) allows the courts, through a two- move method, to submit to “reasonable” administrative company interpretations if a federal statute is vague or confusing. It served largely as a get-out-of-jail complimentary card for presidents and company hacks who liked to make the claim that a law says what they want it to say. From heath care to immigration to children’s activities to COVID jabs, it gave national companies a lot of authority to regulate. &nbsp,

According to Ballotpedia: &nbsp,

The process derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S. A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which involved dispute over a shift in the Environmental Protection Agency’s view of a permitting delivery of the Clean Air Act of 1977. The situation established a two- stage evaluation approach used by courts to evaluate an agency’s legitimate interpretations. Under the review process, courts consider ( 1 ) Congress’ clear intent in passing a law and ( 2 ) ( if the court finds ambiguities in the law ) whether an agency’s rule was reasonably construed and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

The main justice wrote,

The only way to “ensure that the law does not only change wildly, but may develop in a philosophical and coherent fashion”, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265, is for the Court to leave Chevron behind. By overruling Chevron, though, the Court does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. Despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology, the holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are legal, including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself, are still subject to statutory stare decisis. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457. Chevron’s mere reliance on the company’s stock cannot be considered a” special justification” for overriding a similar holding. &nbsp,

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog wrote: &nbsp,

Chevron, Roberts explains ,]Chevron ] “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing federal administrative agencies,” that the reviewing court– not the agency whose action it reviews– is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret… statutory provisions. If a court had exercised its independent judgment, as required by the APA, it requires a court to ignore or not follow the conclusion reached.

According to Roberts, Chevron’s presumption that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of power by Congress to federal agencies is misguided because agencies lack special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities is misguided. Courts do”.

Roberts points out that today’s decision” not calls into question previous cases that relied on the Chevron framework.” Despite our change in interpretive methodology, the holdings of those cases where specific agency actions are lawful, including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself, are still subject to statutory stare decisis.

The high court had consolidated two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce—and heard oral arguments in January of this year. &nbsp,

Howe reports,” The vote is 6- 3 ( although 6- 2 in Loper- Bright&nbsp, because Jackson is recused ). Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson as it applies to Relentless, from which she is not recused”.

Both cases involve the interpretation of a federal fishing law, which requires government monitors to accompany some fishing boats, according to George W. Bush’s Magnuson-Stokes Act. At issue: Who would pay for the monitors—the agency requiring them or the fishermen themselves? The lower court ruled that the NMFS had the right to demand payment from the fishermen for the$ 700- a-day monitors on trips that frequently last several days using the Chevron deference. &nbsp,

The plaintiffs argued before the Supreme Court that the lower court’s decision “perceives ambiguity in statutory silence,” arguing that Congress did not intend to grant the agency such a dangerous and uncabined authority. They added,” Whether by clarifying&nbsp, Chevron or overruling it, this Court should grant review and reverse the clear agency overreach at issue here”.

The Most Significant Supreme Court Case in Years Could End Federal Regulation as We Know It, Says &nbsp

Most of us learned in school ( I hope! ) that the court interprets the law. It’s explained in both Marbury v. Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 78. The Chevron doctrine, in contrast, gives some of that authority to unelected bureaucrats and gives it away from the courts. The word “deference” in Chevron means that the court defers rulemaking to “experts” in the administrative state. &nbsp,

Carrie Campbell Severino wrote at National Review: &nbsp,

In a number of cases, the Supreme Court itself has stated that unelected bureaucrats should not rule on important issues. The number of questions decided by agencies has increased over the course of generations, whether major or minor. The predominant paradigm of governing was for more than a century distrust of the electorate and the ceding of more and more power to the unelected, a result of the Progressive Era. Even as the majority of the executive branch was completely insulated from elected officials, the idea of superior bureaucratic competence being ridiculously ridiculous. &nbsp,

When then- Judge Brett Kavanaugh was on the D. C. Circuit Court, he argued: &nbsp,

We must be aware of Chevron’s commitment to pushing the legal envelope, which seems to be prevalent in both political parties ‘ administrations. After all, an executive branch decisionmaker might theorize that “our interpretation of the statute should pass muster as reasonable if we can just convince a court that the statutory provision is ambiguous.” And if our interpretation of the statute is accepted, we can accomplish a significant policy goal. And is n’t every statute ambiguous in some way or another? Let’s go for it”. Executive branch organizations frequently believe they can take a specific action unless it is specifically forbidden.

I wrote on Tuesday: &nbsp,

Bureaucrats and attorneys will argue that phasing out Chevron would send federal agencies into a tidal wave and undercut the “experts” tasked with interrogating 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 bureaucrats would mean less of them would rule over the average American, 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.

Do you hear that? The Swamp’s weeping and teeth-gnashing emanate from there. &nbsp,

Do you want to read more of these tales? By becoming a VIP member, you can help us keep our work here. This week, we’re offering 60 % off a new VIP membership with the promo code USA60. Just think about getting exclusive members-only PJ Media news and analysis for less than$ 2 per month while keeping us in the fight. Our VIP members keep us independent—no one is pulling our strings. Join here today. &nbsp,

Source credit