SCOTUS Grants Review of Case That Will Gut the Federal Bureaucracy!

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

There is probably a better than 50/50 (maybe like 90/10)  chance of Chevron being overturned and going to the doctrine of strict construction. 

[Unwoke]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

There is probably a better than 50/50 (maybe like 90/10)  chance of Chevron being overturned and going to the doctrine of strict construction. 

The US Supreme Court has agreed to review Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo, which directly challenges Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc - the landmark case which granted Federal Agencies the power to interpret laws and expand powers.

 

-In Loper, the lower courts upheld the powers of federal agencies to interpret statutes broadly (effectively creating new laws without needing to go through the legislative process).

 

-This is why we have agencies like the EPA creating new rules out of thin air, or the ATF banning "bump stocks". They stretch statutes and get away with it and lower courts are bound to uphold them because of the infamous Chevron decision.

 

-The acceptance of a direct of review of Loper suggests at least FOUR Justices are ready to gut it. My guess is, it is Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh who loathes the Chevron decision. The question before them is simply this:  "whether the Court should overrule Chevron".

 

-Last year, in EPA v West Virginia, SCOTUS ruled in a 6-3 that the EPA could not regulate emissions without going to Congress. This handicapped the EPA going forward. However, many expected SCOTUS to strike down the Admin State, too. It was just the first step.

 

-Now, the Court will face the big question: whether Chevron should be tossed, or greatly reined in.

I believe this Court will drive a stake through the heart of Chevron, and great curtail the Feds. That’s my prediction. 🤞

[tvc184]

28 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

The US Supreme Court has agreed to review Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo, which directly challenges Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc - the landmark case which granted Federal Agencies the power to interpret laws and expand powers.

 

-In Loper, the lower courts upheld the powers of federal agencies to interpret statutes broadly (effectively creating new laws without needing to go through the legislative process).

 

-This is why we have agencies like the EPA creating new rules out of thin air, or the ATF banning "bump stocks". They stretch statutes and get away with it and lower courts are bound to uphold them because of the infamous Chevron decision.

 

-The acceptance of a direct of review of Loper suggests at least FOUR Justices are ready to gut it. My guess is, it is Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh who loathes the Chevron decision. The question before them is simply this:  "whether the Court should overrule Chevron".

 

-Last year, in EPA v West Virginia, SCOTUS ruled in a 6-3 that the EPA could not regulate emissions without going to Congress. This handicapped the EPA going forward. However, many expected SCOTUS to strike down the Admin State, too. It was just the first step.

 

-Now, the Court will face the big question: whether Chevron should be tossed, or greatly reined in.

I believe this Court will drive a stake through the heart of Chevron, and great curtail the Feds. That’s my prediction. 🤞

I think you are correct, they likely will overturn Chevron. 

I agree that Chevron needs to be overturned but agencies should and do have rule making authority. It just has to be (or should be if Chevron is overturned) within clear guidelines.

 In bump stocks, the ATF should have determination authority. If I come up with a newly designed gun tomorrow, who determines if it is a rifle, handgun, machine gun, etc.? Do you convene Congress for every item ever invented or patented?

The problem with the bump stock determination is that is doesn’t fit the definition given by Congress (which I believe was the Fifth Circuit ruling). Congress defined a machine gun as a firearm firing more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.  ATF has incorrectly said that a bump stock does that with the single pull but it really doesn’t. The trigger still has to be reset and activated each time. The stock simply assists in it. But no matter, someone has to decide.

An example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Like all states, Texas requires a tax for some outdoor activities in the form of a hunting license or fishing license. So who sets the tax rate? The elected Texas legislature? Nope, it’s the TPWD. So how does a non-elected government agency issue legal taxes? It is because the elected legislature gave them that authority. 

Without such authority, nothing could ever be done. The problem is that the SCOTUS Chevron decision gave federal agencies the right to go outside of strict construction or called the rule of lenity. If a law was so ambiguous that people would scratch their heads and say, we really aren’t sure what that means, Chevron gave agencies the right to fill in the blanks as they saw fit. That is the problem. The rule of strict constitution says that if something is not clearly stated, it can’t be enforced.

 In the EPA case as an example, Congress had the authority to allow the EPA to regulate emissions. They just can’t make up their own standards which if what the EPA did. Congress didn’t give the EPA the authority to set caps on emissions based on criteria that the EPA wanted. Congress COULD HAVE given that authority and the EPA could do exactly what they did. The problem is that they didn’t. Could they have given the authority to the EPA? Certainly. Did they? No  

My point is that agencies do have rule making or determination authority, should have and even the setting of guidelines (in the cases such as fishing licenses, even taxes). It just had to be the clear intent of Congress. Chevron gave them leeway to go outside of clear intent.