Goodbye to the Chevron Doctrine

[SunsetBengal]

A return to due process, and a huge blow to massive regulatory overreach by governmental agencies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-supreme-court-didn-t-destroy-the-regulatory-state-it-stood-up-for-due-process/ar-BB1pit2W?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=116ffa288d7a4f8d8534a817d1846691&ei=224

Quote:With a set of rulings handed down over the past week, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court decisively stood up for the due process rights of Americans who come into conflict with the administrative state.

On their own, each of those rulings is significant. In a pair of cases decided together last week, the Supreme Court overturned a decades-old precedent that required judges to defer to the supposed expertise of executive agencies. In scrapping the so-called Chevron doctrine, the Court leveled the playing field for legal challenges to regulatory rules.

In a separate case decided on Thursday, S.E.C. v. Jarkesy, the Court said that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must try civil fraud suits in federal district court rather than using its own, internal administrative law courts. The decision protects the right to a trial by jury and will ensure that fewer Americans will be forced to navigate the expensive, time-consuming administrative law system before getting their case heard by a real court.
Finally, on Monday, the Court ruled that businesses can challenge federal regulations within six years of suffering some harm at the hands of the administrative state. Previously, those challenges were limited to six years after the regulation itself was approved—an arrangement that effectively eliminated any hope of due process for those victimized by longstanding rules.

Linked together, the outcome of these four cases and three decisions is even greater than the sum of their parts. In identical 6–3 decisions, the Court's conservative majority sent a clear signal that federal judges ought to have the final say on matters involving the regulatory state—because that's the system our Constitution requires.

That's not a power grab by the federal judiciary—as some commentators have claimed—but a restoration of the proper role of judges as a check on executive agencies' power.

"Most people understand that, when it comes to criminal defendants, people deserve their day in court in front of a neutral arbiter. It should be equally common-sensical that when the accused is a family-run fishing business contesting an agency's power, or a man accused of breaking securities law, they also deserve these due process rights," Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, told Reason after these rulings were announced.

Boden said the Court's decisions over the past week are "merely an extension of due process rights for the accused to the behemoth administrative state. This is something that champions of a fair and just society should celebrate—just as they do in other contexts."

Not everyone is celebrating, however. In a dissenting opinion to Monday's Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve ruling, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that"the tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and [the case that overturned the Chevron doctrine] have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government."

While that might sound awesome to libertarians, it's sadly not exactly true. The promised tsunami of cases will only materialize if the federal government continues to steamroll Americans' rights via the administrative state.

In so many words, Jackson is arguing that if the government violates due process frequently enough, then it should be allowed to keep doing that because fixing the situation—that is, ensuring that justice is served to the victims of federal overreach—will simply be too difficult for the courts. But if that's true, then why have courts and constitutional promises about due process in the first place?

The regulatory state will still exist. But now it will have to defend itself in front of real judges and juries and without the expectation that those judges and juries will simply go along with the idea that regulators must know best.

For a more rational view of what the Supreme Court is doing here, look to the majority opinion that overturned Chevron. In it, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the legal doctrine requiring judicial deference to the regulatory state had created "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law actually says and that it had effectively allowed the administrative state to usurp the federal courts.

"Perhaps most fundamentally," Roberts wrote, "Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Due process matters, and judges are the arbiters of due process within our legal system. This should not be a controversial or radical perspective.

Trying to derive broad narratives from a series of Supreme Court rulings can be a fraught thing to do. Most cases are decided on narrow, legalistic grounds rather than being the sweeping statements that political media makes them out to be.

This, however, seems like an exception to that rule. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has spoken with a clear voice. In doing so, it has confirmed that individuals and businesses subject to federal regulations have the right to defend themselves without having to navigate a rigged quasi-judicial process inside the executive branch.

Going forward, that means judges and courts will have fewer opportunities to dismiss cases and will instead have to consider the merits and constitutionality of the rules in question. That helps to restore the balance of power, not break it.

The post The Supreme Court Didn't Destroy the Regulatory State. It Stood Up for Due Process. appeared first on Reason.com.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-03-2024, 10:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A return to due process, and a huge blow to massive regulatory overreach by governmental agencies.

I haven't read a ton on it, but my take is that this ruling has issues just like the original Chevron ruling.

While Chevron gave too much power to regulators, I just don't see where it was inherently flawed such that there was no legal redress.  The courts have blocked plenty of Executive Actions, both Biden and Trump, so regulators have never been able to just dismiss Constitutional challenges claiming the deference doctrine.

Seems like this is just creating additional hurdles and red tape where it wasn't really necessary.  Seems like this is really an issue for Congress to address, where if they don't like the interpretation or enforcement of the Executive Branch, then it's Congress's job to take up the relevant legislation.  The gray areas of execution Chevron appears to address is Constitutional power granted to the Executive branch.

If Congress neglects or abdicates that role, it's not for the Courts to step in and take up.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm sure people like Stewy can provide other examples, but the ATF has been the poster child for capricious regulatory abuse. Good to see them utterly stripped of that power and I'm very interested in how this will affect things going forward.

[Luvnit2]

(07-03-2024, 10:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A return to due process, and a huge blow to massive regulatory overreach by governmental agencies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-supreme-court-didn-t-destroy-the-regulatory-state-it-stood-up-for-due-process/ar-BB1pit2W?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=116ffa288d7a4f8d8534a817d1846691&ei=224

I am for anything that has a "less government" outcome. In seems our government agencies felt empowered to bypass Congress.

I am hopeful this will overturn the elimination of student debt and future use of agencies to skirt the rule of law.

[CJD]

Ideally, Congress would write laws in a way that it is uncommon for two distinct interpretations could exist. I don't know exactly how it would work, but I sure hope this ruling means that Congress can go and "ungray" some of the laws that had more impactful interpretations so that agencies won't have to go talk to the judicial system all day every day.

Thankfully, we have a functional Congress who could easily handle that, if put to task.

[samhain]

(07-03-2024, 10:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A return to due process, and a huge blow to massive regulatory overreach by governmental agencies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-supreme-court-didn-t-destroy-the-regulatory-state-it-stood-up-for-due-process/ar-BB1pit2W?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=116ffa288d7a4f8d8534a817d1846691&ei=224

Honest question; and you know I like you, unlike others on here:  Did you actually know WTF the Chevron Doctrine was before this ruling?  If so I'm impressed.  If not, then this is kind of just a bad faith "owning libs" kind of post.  Nothing wrong with that if you're into it, just looking for clarity.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-03-2024, 10:37 PM)samhain Wrote: Honest question; and you know I like you, unlike others on here:  Did you actually know WTF the Chevron Doctrine was before this ruling?  If so I'm impressed.  If not, then this is kind of just a bad faith "owning libs" kind of post.  Nothing wrong with that if you're into it, just looking for clarity.

Interestingly enough, I was already familiar with the Chevron Doctrine. Working in the Engineering and Surveying field, cases involving governmental regulatory agencies always catch my eye, as the EPA has hand a large hand in hindering development.  Not that the EPA's hindering stops development, it just typically results in a more lengthy and costly process.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-04-2024, 05:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interestingly enough, I was already familiar with the Chevron Doctrine. Working in the Engineering and Surveying field, cases involving governmental regulatory agencies always catch my eye, as the EPA has hand a large hand in hindering development.  Not that the EPA's hindering stops development, it just typically results in a more lengthy and costly process.

I was going to say this was probably a big hit to the EPA as i know they like to get their fingers in everything possible, just to make a little extra money by tossing some more red tape in there. But you covered it.

[Dill]

(07-03-2024, 10:37 PM)samhain Wrote: Honest question; and you know I like you, unlike others on here:  Did you actually know WTF the Chevron Doctrine was before this ruling?  If so I'm impressed.  If not, then this is kind of just a bad faith "owning libs" kind of post.  Nothing wrong with that if you're into it, just looking for clarity.

So far, people posting on this thread seem to view this as simply a victory over regulatory agencies and government overreach.

However, conflicts over regulation, especially regarding environmental damage and food and drug safety, will continue to come before the court,
and, as Kagan reminds us in her dissent, will continue to require complex scientific and technical knowledge, as well as of the interrelation between the 
regulation in question and others.

But now conservative judges will be deciding the ratio of risk to profit rather than experienced, educated specialists in the concerned fields.  E.g., consider how they might rule on the safety of a new abortion pill. 

The Loper ruling is an important complement to Trump vs the US and for Project 2025, should Trump be elected.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-06-2024, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: So far, people posting on this thread seem to view this as simply a victory over regulatory agencies and government overreach.

However, conflicts over regulation, especially regarding environmental damage and food and drug safety, will continue to come before the court,
and, as Kagan reminds us in her dissent, will continue to require complex scientific and technical knowledge, as well as of the interrelation between the 
regulation in question and others.

But now conservative judges will be deciding the ratio of risk to profit rather than experienced, educated specialists in the concerned fields.  E.g., consider how they might rule on the safety of a new abortion pill. 

The Loper ruling is an important complement to Trump vs the US and for Project 2025, should Trump be elected.

I don't think you're giving the other posters in this thread much credit for their understanding of this issue or general intelligence.  I doubt many are blind to the potential issues with this decision, but maybe, just maybe, they consider the ramifications of government agencies effectively creating laws to be of more significance?  For example, let's say the DoT completes a rigorous scientific study that shows red cars are 60% more likely to be involved in car accidents than any other colored car.  What should happen is they take such information to the legislature and have them craft a law to address this issue.  What was happening is the DoT would ban red cars.  Is this overly simplistic?  Yes and no.  Such decisions where made by the ATF on a regular basis, and with zero scientific data to back said decisions.  I've posted videos lampooning the comically inane ATF decisions and the process they've historically used to reach them.  This decision will halt such capricious decisions from changing the law on a mere whim.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-06-2024, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: So far, people posting on this thread seem to view this as simply a victory over regulatory agencies and government overreach.

However, conflicts over regulation, especially regarding environmental damage and food and drug safety, will continue to come before the court,
and, as Kagan reminds us in her dissent, will continue to require complex scientific and technical knowledge, as well as of the interrelation between the 
regulation in question and others.

But now conservative judges will be deciding the ratio of risk to profit rather than experienced, educated specialists in the concerned fields.  E.g., consider how they might rule on the safety of a new abortion pill. 

The Loper ruling is an important complement to Trump vs the US and for Project 2025, should Trump be elected.

That's all great if they ARE experts in their field and want to make laws based on that.  

You'll find though that in many cases they probably don't have an "expert" on hand for what ever it is they want to dabble in. 

Someone didn't like someone else and want to get a little revenge. It happens, jealousy is quite a nasty thing.

[Dill]

(07-06-2024, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you're giving the other posters in this thread much credit for their understanding of this issue or general intelligence.  I doubt many are blind to the potential issues with this decision, but maybe, just maybe, they consider the ramifications of government agencies effectively creating laws to be of more significance?  For example, let's say the DoT completes a rigorous scientific study that shows red cars are 60% more likely to be involved in car accidents than any other colored car.  What should happen is they take such information to the legislature and have them craft a law to address this issue.  What was happening is the DoT would ban red cars.  Is this overly simplistic?  Yes and no.  Such decisions where made by the ATF on a regular basis, and with zero scientific data to back said decisions.  I've posted videos lampooning the comically inane ATF decisions and the process they've historically used to reach them.  This decision will halt such capricious decisions from changing the law on a mere whim.  

I think that's how the Trump court hopes people will view their decision--as a victory of the regulatory state and the poser of unelected officials.

But this decision will not take the red car information back to the legislature to craft a new law.

So who will be making the capricious decisions then, in effect crafting a new law without any expertise at all?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(Yesterday, 10:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I think that's how the Trump court hopes people will view their decision--as a victory of the regulatory state and the poser of unelected officials.

The "Trump court", nice propaganda there Joseph.

Quote:But this decision will not take the red car information back to the legislature to craft a new law.

Of course the decision won't, the regulatory agency will.

Quote:So who will be making the capricious decisions then, in effect crafting a new law without any expertise at all?

The legislature, with expert advice.  Hopefully not capriciously, but that's certainly less likely when the law is created as intended instead of by executive fiat.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(Yesterday, 10:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I think that's how the Trump court hopes people will view their decision--as a victory of the regulatory state and the poser of unelected officials.

But this decision will not take the red car information back to the legislature to craft a new law.

So who will be making the capricious decisions then, in effect crafting a new law without any expertise at all?

Why do you like MORE Gov Regulation and power? Wouldn't that make it even easier for an Autocrat to take over??? 

Your argument here just doesn't make much sense to me at this time. maybe you have some other goal in mind so be clear so i can understand your angle. 

[Dill]

(Yesterday, 12:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why do you like MORE Gov Regulation and power? Wouldn't that make it even easier for an Autocrat to take over??? 

Your argument here just doesn't make much sense to me at this time. maybe you have some other goal in mind so be clear so i can understand your angle. 

A good question, OMike.   I don't think this ruling is about MORE gov regulation, 

but it might be about more POWER in the sense that power of the judiciary is increased.

It's about who gets to decide in cases involving existing regulation--experts or conservative judges.

Up to now, the assumption was that Congress passes legislation which, understandably, cannot anticipate every contingency,
and Congress cannot make a new law every damn time a problem arises interpreting regulations.

So the default has been, let experts add rules consistent with Congressional intent while the judges stay out of it.
That's why the Chevron ruling is also called the "Chevron deference" --judges defer to those with scientific or regulatory expertise. 
The complaint about that process has been that unelected officials get to "legislate."

Now unelected officials will still get to "legislate" in the abovementioned sense, just from the bench. 

Final note: it is rather difficult to insure clean air and water and product safety without increasing government power. 
But that sort of regulatory power is usually a CHECK on autocratic power, not an expression of it. Autocrats want freedom FROM law,
not checks and balances. They want immunity from criminal prosecution, to be above the law. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(Yesterday, 02:13 PM)Dill Wrote: A good question, OMike.   I don't think this ruling is about MORE gov regulation, 

but it might be about more POWER in the sense that power of the judiciary is increased.

It's about who gets to decide in cases involving existing regulation--experts or conservative judges.

Up to now, the assumption was that Congress passes legislation which, understandably, cannot anticipate every contingency,
and Congress cannot make a new law every damn time a problem arises interpreting regulations.

So the default has been, let experts add rules consistent with Congressional intent while the judges stay out of it.
That's why the Chevron ruling is also called the "Chevron deference" --judges defer to those with scientific or regulatory expertise. 
The complaint about that process has been that unelected officials get to "legislate."

Now unelected officials will still get to "legislate" in the abovementioned sense, just from the bench. 

Final note: it is rather difficult to insure clean air and water and product safety without increasing government power. 
But that sort of regulatory power is usually a CHECK on autocratic power, not an expression of it. Autocrats want freedom FROM law,
not checks and balances. They want immunity from criminal prosecution, to be above the law. 

So for you, it's all about agencies being able to quickly respond for Climate Control actions, whether they are experts or not, doesn't matter, just let them do what they think is best for the overall goal? In many of the current cases, the cost is not weighed into their thinking and why should it? Their goal is to get everyone doing the same and likely fine those that aren't able to meet those standards. 

I'd much rather have a true panel of experts that establish standards and understand the whole process and have their work converted to laws than all of these individual agencies trying to do the same all at once.

Perfect example of the chaos caused by not using a panel to make standards. We see this in the Electric cars, trying to make charging stations that can meet all of the various types and constant upgrades is rather costly.. 8 done so far with that $7.5B money that was given for that purpose back in Nov of 2021? almost 3 years later and the results are very poor.

Just different ways of thinking i guess.