Chevron Deference Overruled

[OrediggerPoke]

In the most consequential decision in my lifetime by far, the Supreme Court has struck down the deference provided to executive agencies in statutory interpretation (formerly providing deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as the agency’s interpretation was a permissible interpretation).  
 

It can’t be overstated how impactful this will be to pretty much every thing we do.  Every Agency rules is now very much under the microscope.  
 

I personally support the decision.  But the courts, now the sole  arbiters of statutory interpretation, are about to be overwhelmed with administrative challenges.  

[gordonsolie]

It was decided 6-0 in 1984, the entire court back then didn’t hear it. 

Wasn’t necessarily bad at the time, but admin agencies have seen their power mushroom like a twisted octopus, and it’s clear the spirit of that ruling has been violated. 

Admin agencies have a place, just not the giant place they’d had leading up until today. Make Congress do their job. 

[Jack]

Good post...havent been tracking this one. This is huge.

Congress has wrongfully deferred decisions to the agencies ...unelected officials...far too long....Hopefully cut down most of the Executive orders.

From ruling that CO2 is a pollutant, to deciding fleet average MPG.

 

[Billings]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:17 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

In the most consequential decision in my lifetime by far, the Supreme Court has struck down the deference provided to executive agencies in statutory interpretation (formerly providing deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as the agency’s interpretation was a permissible interpretation).  
 

It can’t be overstated how impactful this will be to pretty much every thing we do.  Every Agency rules is now very much under the microscope.  
 

I personally support the decision.  But the courts, now the sole  arbiters of statutory interpretation, are about to be overwhelmed with administrative challenges.  

Mixed feelings.  Judges rarely have the expertise to make decisions on much of this stuff

[OrediggerPoke]

This ruling should thankfully drastically reduce the ability to craft law through executive order (a favorite of both the Trump and Biden administrations).  

[OrediggerPoke]

Gorsuch’s concurrence is a great history recap.  I didn’t realize that Chevron deference was originally a Scalia concept.  In Scalia’s later years he began to speak ill of Chevron deference.  

[Jack]

On 6/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, Billings said:

Mixed feelings.  Judges rarely have the expertise to make decisions on much of this stuff

Don't you think this is on congress to mandate and not judges?

[AlpineSummer]

As I posted earlier in the SCOTUS thread to @East Village Poltergeist, I'm ambivalent. I still have not read the rulings.   I did get this in my inbox from Endpoints.   What it feels like is a lot of sorting, shuffling, and new Leg is needed.  The short article and quote is about the FDA and biomed, but there are many areas that parallel the concerns here.

https://endpts.com/why-the-supreme-courts-overrule-of-chevron-has-major-implications-for-the-fda/

"But writing for the minority in opposition, Justice Elena Kagan fiercely disagreed. She explained how it’s not appropriate for courts to make complex scientific decisions for which the agencies have the specialized knowledge and personnel. She pointed to a provision in the Public Health Service Act that gives the FDA the authority to regulate biological products, including proteins.

“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a ‘protein’?” Kagan wrote. “I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue. (First question: What even is an alpha amino acid polymer?) But the FDA likely has scores of scientists on staff who can think intelligently about it, maybe collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”

Reshma Ramachandran, a professor of medicine at Yale University and the chair of Doctors for America’s FDA taskforce, wrote in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) that she’s concerned the court’s decision could lead to potential delays in the FDA’s issuing of regulations as it could take longer to determine what authority the agency holds."

[gordonsolie]

I

On 6/28/2024 at 4:07 PM, AlpineSummer said:

As I posted earlier in the SCOTUS thread to @East Village Poltergeist, I'm ambivalent. I still have not read the rulings.   I did get this in my inbox from Endpoints.   What it feels like is a lot of sorting, shuffling, and new Leg is needed.  The short article and quote is about the FDA and biomed, but there are many areas that parallel the concerns here.

https://endpts.com/why-the-supreme-courts-overrule-of-chevron-has-major-implications-for-the-fda/

"But writing for the minority in opposition, Justice Elena Kagan fiercely disagreed. She explained how it’s not appropriate for courts to make complex scientific decisions for which the agencies have the specialized knowledge and personnel. She pointed to a provision in the Public Health Service Act that gives the FDA the authority to regulate biological products, including proteins.

“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a ‘protein’?” Kagan wrote. “I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue. (First question: What even is an alpha amino acid polymer?) But the FDA likely has scores of scientists on staff who can think intelligently about it, maybe collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”

Reshma Ramachandran, a professor of medicine at Yale University and the chair of Doctors for America’s FDA taskforce, wrote in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) that she’s concerned the court’s decision could lead to potential delays in the FDA’s issuing of regulations as it could take longer to determine what authority the agency holds."

Reading the opinion, I don’t think the FDA should be materially affected by it. They’ll of course want to do a legal analysis based on their own facts and circumstances, but I don’t think they’ll face any major obstruction to their usual operations, if there’s any at all. 

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:13 PM, East Village Poltergeist said:

I

Reading the opinion, I don’t think the FDA should be materially affected by it. They’ll of course want to do a legal analysis based on their own facts and circumstances, but I don’t think they’ll face any major obstruction to their usual operations, if there’s any at all. 

I'll try to get to it later this eve.  I did scan the amicus brief the cited prof in the Endpoints link co-wrote.  Fast-tracking and labeling issues jumped out.  I think there is a lot of technical stuff that is too deep in the weeds for me to take a trimmer to, but I'll pay some attention to the fallout and pin action. 

https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20231222121351951_22-1219-Amicus-Brief-of-Drs.-Reshma-Ramachandran-and-Joseph-S.-Ross.pdf

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:13 PM, East Village Poltergeist said:

I

Reading the opinion, I don’t think the FDA should be materially affected by it. They’ll of course want to do a legal analysis based on their own facts and circumstances, but I don’t think they’ll face any major obstruction to their usual operations, if there’s any at all. 

Every federal agency and nearly every promulgated rule will be materially impacted by the decision in my opinion.  Agencies are going to need to take a hard look at their rules and ask themselves if the statute is actually silent on the issue that their rule seeks to address.  If so, the agency may not have ever had authority to adopt the rule. 
 

But the result is good.  The current system created too much turnover because rules/laws were subject to flip flop based on whoever the current administration was.  Going forward - we should see adopted rules largely remain and especially so where a court has provided the rule with its blessing.  

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:17 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

In the most consequential decision in my lifetime by far, the Supreme Court has struck down the deference provided to executive agencies in statutory interpretation (formerly providing deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as the agency’s interpretation was a permissible interpretation).  
 

It can’t be overstated how impactful this will be to pretty much every thing we do.  Every Agency rules is now very much under the microscope.  
 

I personally support the decision.  But the courts, now the sole  arbiters of statutory interpretation, are about to be overwhelmed with administrative challenges.  

How…..how can you support this stunning crippling of expertise in government?

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 11:10 AM, Billings said:

Mixed feelings.  Judges rarely have the expertise to make decisions on much of this stuff

Indeed, hence we employ smart people in executive agencies who studied this shit for life.   The decision is stunning judicial arrogance.  

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:41 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

The current system created too much turnover because rules/laws were subject to flip flop based on whoever the current administration was.  Going forward - we should see adopted rules largely remain and especially so where a court has provided the rule with its blessing.  

I don’t think this is an accurate read.  Most of the people interpreting these rules and making decisions and supplying expertise are careerists, I.e not political appointees, and not flipping with each presidency.  They’re experts in their field, and don’t change their minds on the properties of the periodic table of elements based on who is elected.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:43 PM, Orange said:

How…..how can you support this stunning crippling of expertise in government?

I went to law school and actually read Marbury v Madison.  I took and past 3 separate bar exams.  I drafted, interpreted, argued, litigated and provided public comment on 100s if not thousands of agency rules.  I’ve witnessed some agencies craft rules that appear to have nothing to do with the statutory authority under which they adopted such rules for what appears to be reasons of political or personal gain.  
 

Does this not qualify me to have such an opinion? 
 

 

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:46 PM, Orange said:

I don’t think this is an accurate read.  Most of the people interpreting these rules and making decisions and supplying expertise are careerists, I.e not political appointees, and not flipping with each presidency.  They’re experts in their field, and don’t change their minds on the properties of the periodic table of elements based on who is elected.  

Sure.  Can you tell me what ‘waters of the United States’ means?

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

I went to law school and actually read Marbury v Madison.  I took and past 3 separate bar exams.  I drafted, interpreted, argued, litigated and provided public comment on 100s if not thousands of agency rules.  I’ve witnessed some agencies craft rules that appear to have nothing to do with the statutory authority under which they adopted such rules for what appears to be reasons of political or personal gain.  
 

Does this not qualify me to have such an opinion? 
 

 

Any amount of experience won’t prevent you from being insanely wrong.  Look at Alito or Thomas. 
 

FYI, I’m an attorney, too.  I can’t understand why anyone would think that, given an ambiguous statute, judges should decide technical questions that were  deferred to agencies by duly elected congresspeople.   Literally the least qualified branch of the government to do as much.  

[SharkTanked]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:52 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Sure.  Can you tell me what ‘waters of the United States’ means?

H2O in USA

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:52 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Sure.  Can you tell me what ‘waters of the United States’ means?

No, but I trust career environmental scientists to decide what affects our drinking water and how over federalist society pigs who think pride flags are demonic.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:54 PM, Orange said:

No, but I trust career environmental scientists to decide what affects our drinking water and how.  

So why is it that we’ve had 6 markedly different agency definitions of ‘water of the united States’ within the last 20 years? Does the science change year and flip flop drastically year to year?