The End of Environmental Regulations/Chevron

[VikingsGuy]

With the Corner Post decision today, more litigation.

If so, congress can fix it with one sentence.

I do not want agencies or courts making up "interpretations" of otherwise clear law in order to serve the govt's sense of expediency.

As the court says,

"
Perhaps the dissent believes that the
Code of Federal Regulations is full of substantively illegal
regulations vulnerable to meritorious challenges; or per-
haps it believes that meritless challenges will flood federal
courts that are too incompetent to reject them. We have
more confidence in both the Executive Branch and the Ju-
diciary. But we do agree with the dissent on one point:
“‘[T]he ball is in Congress’ court.’”
"

 

[Mountain Man]

For those of you who are interested in learning more about how we got to this point, I highly recommend you read this book. I read it in grad school and it was eye opening how much power the executive branch has just assumed without being challenged by the other two branches, well until now that is.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-law-of-the-executive-branch-9780199382118?cc=us&lang=en&

I’m not suggesting you buy from this source, it was just the first link that came up in my search.

 

[SAJ-99]

Fair enough. There is no doubt that this ruling reduced the power of the executive branch, but I think that power was transferred more to the legislative branch compared to the judicial branch.

It is more so returning the power to where it always should have been.

This is the first time I have agreed with Judge Thomas. Don’t ruin it.

 

[SAJ-99]

The only change in administrative law going forward is that federal courts should resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government's favor. Agencies still will interpret laws passed by Congress as they have always done; however, they simply won't be afforded the head-start in their favor if/when litigation arises.

There is a part of me that think this may be much ado about nothing. Congress won't/can't fix anything, the agencies will continue to try to do their job as best they can, and ignoring SCOTUS has become political sport. But the fact that the majority pick a case about whether or not fisherman had to pay for agency monitors put on their boat to tear apart 40 years of precedent regarding agency powers is a bit suspicious. Particularly when the fisherman never actually had to pay for the monitors, they never spent a day in court, and had all their legal fees paid for by conservative legal groups. It kind of makes me think this won't be the end of it.

 

[Sytes]

not fisherman had to pay for agency monitors put on their boat to tear apart 40 years of precedent regarding agency powers is a bit suspicious.

This is the abuse of the seperation of power, from my perspective. Courts are obliged to consider the Agency expert as the key factor for decision under Chevron excluding exceptional circumstances. Thus, an Agency was able to order vessels to pay to have people placed aboard their own ships to conduct their studies.
This is a politically appointed executive Agency that created their own legislative requirement to pay for and require people aboard their private vessels while they oprerate their business, AND the judicial "Chevron deference" to, in a sense, strong arm courts onto their side as their "expert" for need.

It's the same as IRS declaring each CPA must pay to have an IRS directed person monitor the CPA operation and report it's findings for sake of evaluating the tax process. Another viewpoint, I value Game wardens though if I showed up at the boat ramp to place my boat in the water and a game warden said I must pay to have a designated person aboard myboat to evaluate the fishing conditions for reporting. Sure, it's differing from a person vs a business though the same concept applies.

This NOW says, if I or a business is NOT savvy to the idea of an Agency doing such, I am not instantly up against our judicial system that is based on the Chevron deference off the bat. I do not have to fight to hopefully present substantive evidence of misconduct (or other valid grounds to exempt Chevron) in order to allow a judge to consider the Chevron deference does not apply.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is the abuse of the seperation of power, from my perspective. Courts are obliged to consider the Agency expert as the key factor for decision under Chevron excluding exceptional circumstances. Thus, an Agency was able to order vessels to pay to have people placed aboard their own ships to conduct their studies.
This is a politically appointed executive Agency , that created their own legislative requirement to pay for and require people aboard their private vessels while they oprerate their business, AND the judicial "Chevron deference" to, in a sense, strong arm courts onto their side as their "expert" field of work is essential.

It's the same as IRS declaring each CPA must pay to have an IRS directed person monitor the CPA operation and report it's findings for sake of evaluating the tax process. Another viewpoint, I value Game wardens though if I showed up at the boat ramp to place my boat in the water and a game warden said I must pay to have a designated person aboard myboat to evaluate the fishing conditions for reporting. Sure, it's differing from a person vs a business though the same concept applies.

This NOW says, if I or a business is NOT savvy to the idea of an Agency doing such, I am not instantly up against our judicial system that is based on the Chevron deference off the bat. I have to fight to hopefully present substance evidence of misconduct in order to allow a judge to consider the Chevron defence does not apply.

I agree that they shouldn’t have to pay, but the lack of funds also caused the program to shut down. That probably goes back Congress too. I agree with your scenario regarding payments. But does the monitoring benefit us (via management of species or condition of ocean or whatever). The question I have is whether this leads to you can’t have a monitor on the boat.

It would be interesting to see the arguments in this case and how the judge decided their expertise mattered. I just don’t see how being an expert in counting fish makes you an expert in who should pay. And as I pointed out, the fisherman never had to pay. They were reimbursed for the cost of keeping the person on board. This whole case was stretched to its limit on logic.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree that they shouldn’t have to pay, but the lack of funds also caused the program to shut down. That probably goes back Congress too. I agree with your scenario regarding payments. But does the monitoring benefit us (via management of species or condition of ocean or whatever). The question I have is whether this leads to you can’t have a monitor on the boat.

It would be interesting to see the arguments in this case and how the judge decided their expertise mattered. I just don’t see how being an expert in counting fish makes you an expert in who should pay. And as I pointed out, the fisherman never had to pay. They were reimbursed for the cost of keeping the person on board. This whole case was stretched to its limit on logic.

Congress and the executive agencies do love them some unfunded mandates

 

[MT Super Puncher]

There is a part of me that think this may be much ado about nothing. Congress won't/can't fix anything, the agencies will continue to try to do their job as best they can, and ignoring SCOTUS has become political sport. But the fact that the majority pick a case about whether or not fisherman had to pay for agency monitors put on their boat to tear apart 40 years of precedent regarding agency powers is a bit suspicious. Particularly when the fisherman never actually had to pay for the monitors, they never spent a day in court, and had all their legal fees paid for by conservative legal groups. It kind of makes me think this won't be the end of it.

90% of litigants at the supreme court have their legal fees paid for by special interests groups, especially on high profile cases. Nothing suspicious about this one here. The court likely took this case based on the egregious facts (small business being strong-armed by the feds) as the exemplar case to demonstrate their majority opinion on the evils of Chevron. Would be my guess.

 

[406dn]

Scalia was concerned that a recalcitrant judiciary would slow the "Reagan revolution". Forty years later Gorsuch is concerned a huge unelected and nearly untouchable administrative state will crowd out anything resembling democracy. Both strong conservatives, but came to opposite sides of the same issue given the changing of the times.

Given today's ruling concerning presidential immunity, I think any concern they might have about democracy is pretty small.

Increasingly, they are showing that the judiciary is just another partisan arm of the government.

 

[SAJ-99]

90% of litigants at the supreme court have their legal fees paid for by special interests groups, especially on high profile cases. Nothing suspicious about this one here. The court likely took this case based on the egregious facts (small business being strong-armed by the feds) as the exemplar case to demonstrate their majority opinion on the evils of Chevron. Would be my guess.

Sure, ok on the fees, but these guys were pawns. They literally weren’t strong armed by the government. My understanding is they never had to pay anything for these monitors. Ever!

Side note though, if my name was going to be on a case in front of the Supreme Court, I think I would go just because it would be super cool. Pawn or not. I sure as hell would go to work, especially if I was a sardine fisherman.

 

[Djfan]

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Put me in the former camp.

The hard part about this is that there is no middle ground, which I would prefer.

The agencies making rules is not a good thing. Too many abuses. However, the idea that experts making rules is better than the likes of AOC making rules is a good thing. Still, the thickness of bureaucracy is just a killer these days.

 

[Djfan]

So, does this also take away the ATF's "power to change laws?" Honest question.

I sure hope so

 

[Sytes]

Sure, ok on the fees, but these guys were pawns. They literally weren’t strong armed by the government. My understanding is they never had to pay anything for these monitors. Ever!

Side note though, if my name was going to be on a case in front of the Supreme Court, I think I would go just because it would be super cool. Pawn or not. I sure as hell would go to work, especially if I was a sardine fisherman.

Personally, our government forcing their agency's personnel for any purpose aboard my boat (aside from a temp inspection) is beyond the scope of reasonable government action, none the less an Agency's attempt to require funding their personnel on my $. It doesn't sit well.

 

[Moserkr]

Personally, our government forcing their agency's personnel for any purpose aboard my boat (aside from a temp inspection) is beyond the scope of reasonable government action, none the less an Agency's attempt to require funding their personnel on my $. It doesn't sit well.

Not sure how this meme is not on this thread yet.

 

[SAJ-99]

Personally, our government forcing their agency's personnel for any purpose aboard my boat (aside from a temp inspection) is beyond the scope of reasonable government action, none the less an Agency's attempt to require funding their personnel on my $. It doesn't sit well.

That is your ideology talking. If Congress wrote in the rules that the NFS could select the boats for monitors, you would have to sue on that being unconstitutional. I’m pretty sure this decision didn’t solve anything in regards to that.

 

[Sytes]

That is your ideology talking. If Congress wrote in the rules that the NFS could select the boats for monitors, you would have to sue on that being unconstitutional. I’m pretty sure this decision didn’t solve anything in regards to that.

I'm very sure it does have an impact on this. They no longer hold the court to a standard they are the court experts for Agency interest.

You believe vessels enjoy having government agency personnel on their boat for the duration of time they are out making a living? I believe most would rather not be forced / subject to hosting such government eyes aboard.

I don't want to hear, "if they're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't matter". Well, heck I've no choice. It's internet musings.

 

[Sytes]

Well, well... Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act that governs the "management of fisheries in federal waters and provides that the National Marine Fisheries Service may require vessels to carry federal observers onboard to enforce agency regulations to prevent overfishing". Least it was Congress and not some Agency. - I stand corrected on this point. Hah!

Here's the ugly stick (humored pun intended) that bites:
"Whether the court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify whether statutory silence about the matter of payment constitutes an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. The Chevron doctrine calls on courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. Critics argue that this gives unaccountable bureaucrats too much power. Enough people think this case may have legs that a whopping fourteen amicus briefs were filed supporting the petition."

Bold portion is the disgusting taste of crap.

 

[SAJ-99]

Well, well... Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act that governs the "management of fisheries in federal waters and provides that the National Marine Fisheries Service may require vessels to carry federal observers onboard to enforce agency regulations to prevent overfishing". Least it was Congress and not some Agency. - I stand corrected on this point. Hah!

I applaud your use of the internet and saving me the trouble.

In reading Roberts write up on the decision it almost sounded like he was chastising the past judiciary for being lazy in letting Chevron become so prominent. It's not exactly like the Executive branch took the power from them, rather they just gave it up in the interest of making stuff easier.

The decision itself doesn't solve much. It just means judges will now determine the meaning of vague statutes. I'm not sure if that is supposed to make us feel better or not, but that is their job after all.

 

[ismith]

We don't have to go that far looking for a king, we have a failed New Jersey real estate "mogul" already trying out for the job

My belief is that the powers that be have been lying about how bad orange man is about has hot and heavy as they have been lying about how spry the damn dementia patient in chief has been for the last 4 years.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Have we all considered the implications this has for TSA? Now all their bullshit interpretations and manifestations of authority are in jeopardy! This’ll be fun.