OT- Chevron case overturned

[rulers]

For the lawyers or law geeks like me:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 22–451. Argued January 17, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024

Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their inde pendent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute dele gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and un der the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Because the D. C. and First Circuits relied on Chevron in deciding whether to uphold the Rule, their judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceed ings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

 

[rhavill]

For the lawyers or law geeks like me:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 22–451. Argued January 17, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024

Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their inde pendent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute dele gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and un der the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Because the D. C. and First Circuits relied on Chevron in deciding whether to uphold the Rule, their judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceed ings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Can you translate to English?

 

[rulers]

Can you translate to English?

To my understanding, if I am correct, right I believe it means that the government agencies, bureaucracies cannot interpret the law ambiguously by changing the meaning of the laws as they see fit. It’s up to the courts to interpreti and law not the government agencies.

So I think what’s been happening is that these government bureaucratic agencies have been serving as sheriff, Judge jury and jailer. It emphasizes the separation of powers between the branches of government, and not a consolidation of all the powers under one branch of -the executive. That’s just my lay person’s opinion.

 

[dmlgator1]

This is probably the single biggest decision from the court in many years in terms of long reaching impact.

 

[rulers]

This is probably the single biggest decision from the court in many years in terms of long reaching impact.

Yes, and I think rightfully so. I think it’s important to remain intact of separation of powers. Between the branches of government

 

[httmft]

Yes, and I think rightfully so. I think it’s important to remain intact of separation of powers. Between the branches of government

The original ruling made sense in the 80s as the Courts were being overwhelmed.

But it's been abused allowing unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that basically write new laws.

This SCOTUS has been pretty consistent on returning law making to Congress after decades of Congress shirking its responsibility. Politicians got to hide from regulations they supported but were unpopular with their constituents.

 

[vacate]

The original ruling made sense in the 80s as the Courts were being overwhelmed.

But it's been abused allowing unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that basically write new laws.

This SCOTUS has been pretty consistent on returning law making to Congress after decades of Congress shirking its responsibility. Politicians got to hide from regulations they supported but were unpopular with their constituents.

I'm not an attorney, but agree with the thread based on all I've read. SCOTUS clearly has moved in a direction to force legislatures, as representatives of the people, to take responsibility, as they're ultimately accountable to voters. I very much favor this approach personally. Some of the administrative groups (e.g., the SEC, Dept of Interior, EPA) have grossly abused their mandates. I lived in the world of the SEC for over 35 years, and it's gone so far beyond its mandate and authority it's ridiculous.