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.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Can you translate to English?

It makes the courts too powerful. It take powers granted by Congress to agencies and gives them to the courts.

 

[kalimgoodman]

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.

Congress already gave that power. When new issues arise, they gave the agencies the power to decide the best approach. NOW, when new issues arise, the courts will decide the best approach unless congress pass a new law to address it, i.e social media.

I agree that it is making Congress work more but it is also making the courts more powerful.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Congress already gave that power. When new issues arise, they gave the agencies the power to decide the best approach. NOW, when new issues arise, the courts will decide the best approach unless congress pass a new law to address it, i.e social media.

I agree that it is making Congress work more but it is also making the courts more powerful.

Generally, a good summary with an important difference.

If the agencies need to wade through an ambiguous regulation, they currently have carte blanche power to implement as they sit fit. Bureaucrats always want to consolidate and give more power.

Now, it forces (read: Abortion) the legislatures (Federal, State, Local) to be more precise and do their job, one which is accountable to local voters. I like this far more and while I am pro-choice, the good part of RVW is that it pushes the decision to the states and either their elected representatives or through a ballot initiative.

 

[Gator Fever]

It makes the courts too powerful. It take powers granted by Congress to agencies and gives them to the courts.

Nonsense - it stops the crooked agencies from creating rules because the law might be a little vague. They (mostly the lefties in the agencies but a few conservatives also) were using the ruling to implement their political agenda without having the authority to do that in reality. Now we know any leftist Judge would do the same thing but at least this will dial it back some especially where the laws passed are pretty clear.

 

[nail1988]

Maybe the biggest decision yet. It destroys the Marxist administrative state

 

[Orangeclad]

Generally, a good summary with an important difference.

If the agencies need to wade through an ambiguous regulation, they currently have carte blanche power to implement as they sit fit. Bureaucrats always want to consolidate and give more power.

Now, it forces (read: Abortion) the legislatures (Federal, State, Local) to be more precise and do their job, one which is accountable to local voters. I like this far more and while I am pro-choice, the good part of RVW is that it pushes the decision to the states and either their elected representatives or through a ballot initiative.

And wasn't this the way abortion legislation was working prior to SCOTUS deciding to federalize back in '72 and one of the reason RBG was critical of the SCOTUS decision?