Chevron overturned

[AmbulanceDriver]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna145344

SCOTUS overturned the 1984 Chevron decision. Gee, imagine that, Congress will actually have to enact laws if they want things to happen instead of just letting unelected bureaucrats at federal agencies write rules at their whim.

[WLJ]

6-3 with the 3 being exactly who you would expect

[Brad Johnson]

Came here to post and see AD beat me to it.

Wow. This is HUUUUUGE. This is a universe-scale shift in .gov authorituh scopes, not the least of which will be its impact on every single ATF-related case currently in the appeals system.

Brad

[Brad Johnson]

6-3 with the 3 being exactly who you would expect

Technically 6-2 with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not participating.

Brad

[WLJ]

Technically 6-2 with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not participating.

Brad

Okay, article said 6-3

[K Frame]

"At the time it was decided, Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, with the court ruling that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous. That was initially seen as a benefit to Republican officials in the administration who wanted to make regulations less onerous on businesses."

But once generations of liberally driven, unelected bureaucrats got a taste of that power...

[AmbulanceDriver]

Came here to post and see AD beat me to it.

Wow. This is HUUUUUGE. This is a universe-scale shift in .gov authorituh scopes, not the least of which will be its impact on every single ATF-related case currently in the appeals system.

Brad

I was going to say that the media wonks don't really have a grasp on it, but hell, I don't think anyone fully grasps just how earth shatteringly huge this decision is.   So much of fed.gov is going to have to be rewritten.   I think that this is going to be months just to figure out what needs to be legislated in order to keep in effect.   Combined with the SEC decision (which is admittedly more limited in scope) I would say fed.gov just got royally spanked by  SCOTUS.   

[WLJ]

I won't put it pass this admin to basically ignore the ruling.

[Kingcreek]

I won't put it pass this admin to basically ignore the ruling.

Agree^

[grampster]

Ditto.

[HankB]

I won't put it pass this admin to basically ignore the ruling.

They'll do what's unconstitutional knowing full well that they won't have any personal consequences and their opponents will have to spend $$$ getting their actions undone.

Rinse and repeat.

Just a variation on the old adage "The process is the punishment."

[230RN]

Are the Post Office "rules" on firearms (possession on premises, mail ordering) statutory or regulatory?

[230RN]

I'm not sure it would be that tortuous to just incorporate the regulations as written into law.  Have to bypass a few things like Judiciary, e.g., but that can be fast-tracked.

One advantage, though, is that The Previous Opposition to any Regulation would have another opportunity to shape the regulation(s) / new law(s) to their preferences.

I have "I saw it coming" in my sidebar, but boy, I didn't see this one.  Was my long "campaign" to send a dictionary to every Jurist in the land finally successful? *

Oh, frabjous day, callou callay !

Terry, 230RN

* Viz,

https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=68339.msg1397262;topicseen#msg1397262

Also, every judge, justice, and magistrate in the land should be provided with a dictionary with the pages defining "right," "keep," "bear," "arms," "shall," "not," and "infringed" flagged with a sticky note.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'm not sure it would be that tortuous to just incorporate the regulations as written into law.  Have to bypass a few things like Judiciary, e.g., but that can be fast-tracked.

One advantage, though, is that The Previous Opposition to any Regulation would have another opportunity to shape the regulation(s) / new law(s) to their preferences.
Terry, 230RN

I had similar thoughts about your first statement.  Then came to the conclusion that your second statement is exactly why your first statement won't happen in many cases. 

[230RN]

I had similar thoughts about your first statement.  Then came to the conclusion that your second statement is exactly why your first statement won't happen in many cases. 

Yes, that happens when I mull things over and see wider aspects of the issue.  The second ¶ was a development of the first ¶, not really a contradiction.

But I agree with you that ¶2 will complicate ¶1.

[Perd Hapley]

So Trump's justices defended democracy, just like they did in Dobbs?

[Hawkmoon]

SCOTUS overturned the 1984 Chevron decision. Gee, imagine that, Congress will actually have to enact laws if they want things to happen instead of just letting unelected bureaucrats at federal agencies write rules at their whim.

That's not quite what the ruling says, if I understand it correctly. The SCOTUS didn't rule that Congress can't delegate rule-making to federal agencies. I believe what the court said is that, having adopted regulations, agencies can't flip-flop on what they mean, and that enforcement has to be consistent with what the regulations (and laws) actually say.

[AmbulanceDriver]

That's not quite what the ruling says, if I understand it correctly. The SCOTUS didn't rule that Congress can't delegate rule-making to federal agencies. I believe what the court said is that, having adopted regulations, agencies can't flip-flop on what they mean, and that enforcement has to be consistent with what the regulations (and laws) actually say.

You're right, my read was based on an incorrect understanding of previous Chevron applications.  Having dug a little deeper into it, my understanding is that moving forward, ambiguity in federal statute will need to be resolved by the judicial branch, not by the agency implementing the statute.  So the legislature will have to eliminate ambiguous and vague language in order to explicitly express Congress' intent. 

A familiar example is "forced reset triggers".  Obviously the NFA didn't specifically address those devices as they didn't exist at the time.  But now some wonk at the ATF won't just be able to decide that those are clearly machine guns and fall under the NFA. 

[Perd Hapley]

...ambiguity in federal statute will need to be resolved by the judicial branch, not by the agency implementing the statute. 

I believe that is the crux of it.

Washington Gun Law's take:
https://youtu.be/m6DKOrAEJEw?si=77x5j7xc3M3w2twd

[WLJ]

Didn't we have a recent similar ruling involving the EPA? That didn't seem to deter the ATF

[Perd Hapley]

Didn't we have a recent similar ruling involving the EPA? That didn't seem to deter the ATF

There was a ruling that weakened Chevron, but didn't go as far as this last one.

[WLJ]

Wow, just wow

'I'm Asking You': Sparks Fly As Lauren Boebert Confronts EPA Admin. About Post-Chevron Regulations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D5ZSV13U-E

They're just going to ignore the ruling and continue business as usual

[MechAg94]

Some care needs to be taken with this.  Chevron Deference often meant the judge had to defer to the legal interpretation of the agency.  However, the judge's legal interpretation may not agree with ours.  IMO, it is still better.  The case can focus on the issue at hand instead of having to find some loop hole or work around to attack the regulation.

[230RN]

WLJ remarked, "They're just going to ignore the ruling and continue business as usual."

It's a long standing strategy which relies on the premise that sooner or later law output will exceed court input.  We've been seeing that a lot lately, e.g. New York's Concealed  Carry Improvement Act.

Whimsically, I figure it this way... when:

      Law Output ÷ Court Input > 1

we're screwed. All new laws after that will effectively be Constitutional in perpetuity. :(


Terry, 230RN