Comments 1 - 19 of 19 Search these comments
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly.
The court split along ideological lines in the dispute, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in dissent. Kagan read portions of her dissent from the bench.
Since the 1984 case, the resulting explosive growth of administrative agencies and their budgets, coupled with Chevron-associated legal barriers to administrative accountability, has given rise to a massive, arrogant, parasitic administrative state that has come to believe that its actions and motivations are above reproach or questioning. This doctrine has underpinned the arrogance of Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues at NIH so recently on display in congressional hearings for all who wish to see it. This case has enabled the administrative state to grow so large that many agencies have developed their own judiciary. Prosecutors and judges are unique to each agency, with the power to indict and force you to go to trial all within the structure of the agency - basically, each agency creates its own law and then acts as judge, prosecutor, and jury. No separation of powers, just one hand washing the other, all unified collusion. A self-contained, unconstitutional fourth branch of government with each agency operating under the protective legal umbrella of being defined as the ultimate authority in all matters involving legislative - or scientific and technical- interpretations.
This term delivered a trifecta of swamp-draining decisions. Let’s recap. In Jarkezy, the Court deleted Executive Agencies’ ability to prosecute citizens for crimes; that must now happen in a real court with a real jury. In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron, stripping Executive Agencies’ right to interpret laws by themselves and restoring that power to the courts.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court quietly published Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, and squared the deep-state-demolishing circle. Corner Post deleted the current 6-year statute of limitations for challenging Executive Agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act. Now, citizen plaintiffs can challenge long-standing Agency regulations within 6 years of being affected by them.
The Loper Bright decision made it easier to overturn bad Agency decisions going forwards. And Corner Post just opened the door to retroactive challenges to decades-old regulations. It’s a gold rush for new, re-envigorated litigation against the Regulatory State. Virtually everything is now up for grabs. ...
Liberal Justice Jackson, dissenting in Corner Post, also noticed how revolutionary this decision was. Jackson wrote, “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
They’re going to need a bigger courthouse. Do it! Devastate the functioning of the Federal Government!
... It is difficult to overestimate how much this Supreme Court just historically and permanently altered the landscape of federal government overreach. I’m tempted to invoke again my overused ‘2024’ canard. But actually, I believe this unimaginable improvement in our national prospects was the inevitable result of the Supreme Court observing the government’s wild and painful overreach during the pandemic.
In other words: vaccine mandates.
We’ve longed for a lone decision saying HHS and OSHA can’t just arbitrarily order people to take experimental medical treatments they don’t want. We didn’t get that. But what we did get is arguably and breathtakingly much, much better. The Supreme Court took the long view. They’ve changed everything —including but not only medical freedom— for the better.
We had no right to expect this revolutionary Supreme Court session. What a great day to be alive.
President Trump still paying off, almost four years after leaving office.
I can't repeat this enough:
Sure it is a dry topic devoid of more thrilling content like footage of federal bureaucrats being strung up on gallows all over the DC Mall.
But it is FUCKING IMPORTANT. More so than whoever is POTUS or even what your tax rate is. Seriously.
Q: What is the Chevron Deference doctrine?
A: "By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gave rise to the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.
What the Chevron Deference doctrine did was when administrative agencies write regulations, they often will have their own administrative courts that interpret the regulations the agency has drawn up. For example, if the EPA makes a regulation that says a factory can only put out so much pollution, and there is a question as to whether a specific factory violated the regulation, the first place the factory has to go is the EPA's administrative court, where an EPA administrative judge will interpret the EPA's regulations. If the factory is unsatisfied with the EPA judge's decision, they can appeal to federal court. What Chevron Deference did was this: If the administrative court's decision was appealed, the federal court was then supposed to be heavily deferential to the findings of that administrative court.
Basically, the doctrine put a thumb on the scale in favor of the administrative agency.
The federal court was supposed to give a lot of deference to what the administrative agency found. From a liberty perspective, this is a separation of powers problem. The administrative agency, as an executive agency, is supposed to enforce the law. It's not supposed to write the law. It's not supposed to interpret the law. These alphabet agencies were writing regulations, which is a legislative function. They were enforcing the regulations, an executive function, and then they were interpreting the regulations, which is a judicial function.
The ATF and the alphabet agencies were doing the jobs of all three branches of government and if challenged, the federal courts were supposed to defer to what their administrative courts found. Even if the federal court thought the agency's administrative court got it wrong, they didn't always overrule the decision. They believed that these agencies were the experts, who were best at administering and interpreting the own regulations. For example, the courts acted like since the EPA found that the EPA did nothing wrong, we'll defer to them since they're the experts."
Q: What specifically did the U.S. Supreme Court decide?
A: "Chevron was overturned formally based on the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for the courts to review actions by those agencies. The Supreme Court decided that this deference was unlawful. The Supreme Court said federal courts should start from scratch, rather than showing deference to the alphabet agencies. The High Court removed their thumb from the scale."
Big kick in the balls to Chevron!