Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision, curtailing federal agencies' power in major shift - CHEVRON DEFERENCE IS DEAD

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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.

The court's ruling in a pair of related cases is a significant victory for the conservative legal movement, which has long aimed to unwind or weaken the 1984 decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. Critics of that landmark ruling, which involved a challenge to a regulation enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, have said the so-called Chevron doctrine gives unelected federal bureaucrats too much power in crafting regulations that touch on major areas of American life, such as the workplace, the environment and health care.

"Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires," Roberts wrote for the court. The chief justice called the earlier decision a "judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties."

The framework required courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of laws passed by Congress if it is reasonable. Calls for it to be overturned came from not only conservative legal scholars, but some of the justices themselves who have said courts are abdicating their responsibility to interpret the law.

The Supreme Court's reversal of the Chevron decision also further demonstrates the willingness of its six-justice conservative majority to jettison decades of past rulings. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, dismantling the constitutional right to abortion, and in June 2023, it ended affirmative action in higher education.

The challenge to Chevron deference​

The dispute that led to the court's reevaluation of the Chevron doctrine stemmed from a 2020 federal regulation that required owners of vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery to pay for monitors while they're at sea.

These at-sea monitors, who collect data and oversee fishing operations, can cost more than $700 per day, according to court filings.

The National Marine Fisheries Service implemented the rule under a 1976 law, arguing that the measure allows it to require fishing vessels to cover the cost of the monitors. But companies that operate boats in New Jersey and Rhode Island challenged the regulation in two different federal courts, claiming the fisheries service lacked the authority to mandate industry-funded monitoring.

The federal government prevailed in both challenges, and the fishing companies asked the Supreme Court to step in and overrule Chevron.

The industry-monitored fishing program was suspended in April 2023 because of a lack of federal funding, and the fishermen were reimbursed for associated costs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from one of the two Chevron cases before the court.

Concerns about a ruling​

While the conservative legal movement decried the growth of the so-called administrative state, the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider the Chevron ruling sparked concerns that unwinding or even limiting the framework would threaten the ability of federal agencies to craft regulations on issues like the environment, nuclear energy or health care.

Proponents of the doctrine have argued that agencies have the expertise and experience to address gaps in the laws enacted by Congress, especially when it comes to administering programs that serve broad swaths of the population. Overturning Chevron would make it more difficult for the federal government to implement the laws passed by Congress, its backers warned.

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to leave Chevron deference intact, calling it a "bedrock principle of administrative law." Justice Department lawyers argued that the framework allows experts at federal agencies to interpret statutes, and have said they, not judges, are better suited to respond to ambiguities in a law.

Chevron doctrine has been applied by lower courts in thousands of cases. The Supreme Court itself has invoked the framework to uphold agencies' interpretations of statutes at least 70 times, but not since 2016.

The pair of disputes were among several others that the justices are deciding this term that involve the power of federal agencies. They also weighed the constitutionality of internal legal proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which threatened to upend the work of administrative law judges in various federal agencies, as well as whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacked the authority to outlaw bump stocks under a 1934 law that regulated machine guns.

The court ruled in a divided 6-3 decision that the ATF did go too far when it banned bump stocks, invalidating the rule put in place during the Trump administration.

Link
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, this might be leading to the death of organizations like the ATF. And ya know, it couldn’t have happened to a worse group of Kik-I mean people :) :stickup:
There is not a single power the ATF has that isn't Chevron based. By the end of today you'll start hearing about lawsuits across the US specifically targeting the ATF to destroy every ruling they've ever made.

EPA too, actually; they'll die a death of a thousand cuts next time.
 
SEC v. Jarkesy
Jarkesy was crazy to me. Isn't the left supposed to be in favor of constitutional protections for those subjected to legal action by the government? If you told a liberal intellectual 25 years ago that the left wing establishment would stand against jury trial rights, they wouldn't believe you.
 
Sorry, I just woke up but I'm having a hard time understanding this shit. Can anyone explain it in plain English? Why should I care about this?
Congress basically stopped creating laws in large parts (basically most of their fucking job) and passed that power onto unelected agencies. Like the ATF for example. That could implement bans on gun parts, or completely redefine what is legal or not. The SBR thing was the most recent example where they decided to unilaterally redefine what is illegal. So that perfectly legal gun you bought yesterday will land you in rape dungeon prison today. A bunch of unelected pencil pushers and Feds just decided it's what they wanted to do. If you wanted to challenge any of their whims written into law, you had to overcome this precedent. Now it'll be much easier to fight.
 
Every time, I think I hate these cockroaches enough, I don't.
I actually agree with them, they are better suited to interpret ambiguities in law...in consultation with Congress when passing a law to address those ambiguities. That's it, not interpreting it with binding legal effect. Until Congress passes the law, there are no regulations.

If the workload for Congress is too much, it needs to be made bigger. Up the House to 1,000 representatives.
 
Sorry, I just woke up but I'm having a hard time understanding this shit. Can anyone explain it in plain English? Why should I care about this?
Because since Chevron, Congress has been able to pass vague, ambiguous laws delegating power to regulatory agencies who then use their 'expertise' (political biases and pecuniary interests) to 'interpret' the vague, ambiguous statutes for maximum profit/lolz.

Chevron basically enabled Congress and the federal courts to pass off their jobs to bureaucrats.
 
:o.....the madmen actually fucking did it. Interesting times ahead, folks.
I vaguely remember some journo (I think it was in The Atlantic) saying that overturning Chevron would basically obliterate the New Deal.
There is not a single power the ATF has that isn't Chevron based. By the end of today you'll start hearing about lawsuits across the US specifically targeting the ATF to destroy every ruling they've ever made.

EPA too, actually; they'll die a death of a thousand cuts next time.
1719588310180.png

STOP, I CAN ONLY GET SO ERECT
 
There is not a single power the ATF has that isn't Chevron based. By the end of today you'll start hearing about lawsuits across the US specifically targeting the ATF to destroy every ruling they've ever made.

EPA too, actually; they'll die a death of a thousand cuts next time.
:story: TAD: TOTAL ATF DEATH

Maybe now ammo prices will go down!
 
Because since Chevron, Congress has been able to pass vague, ambiguous laws delegating power to regulatory agencies who then use their 'expertise' (political biases and pecuniary interests) to 'interpret' the vague, ambiguous statutes for maximum profit/lolz.

Chevron basically enabled Congress and the federal courts to pass off their jobs to bureaucrats.
The Whitehouse used Chevron to bypass the political resistance that would happen from trying to pass laws that would justify the shit those federal agencies did.

It turned those federal agencies into private armies that did not have to answer to anyone.
 
Last edited:
“Proponents of the doctrine have argued that agencies have the expertise and experience to address gaps in the laws enacted by Congress, especially when it comes to administering programs that serve broad swaths of the population.”


Wait, I read past this in the article, ARE THEY SERIOUS!? The current director of the ATF has literally Z E R O firearms knowledge. I would expect most of his traitorous organization to be the same. These are not experts, they are retards with the authority to do night raids on your home without knocking and shoot you dead.
 
Back