Supreme Court Delivers Crippling Blow to Permanent Bureaucracy’s Power Over Our Lives!

[Reagan]

From the article:  

"Siding 6-3 with the fishermen, the Supreme Court reversed its 1984 landmark case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which lower courts relied on to uphold NOAA’s rule forcing companies to doll out $700 per day — around 20% of their revenue — t0 pay the salaries of federally mandated on-board observers. The principle of Chevron deference, rooted in the landmark case, instructed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.”  New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) President Mark Chenoweth said that “the dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun.”"

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

Huge case. Federal agencies can’t make up their own rules and definitions. 

[thetragichippy]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Huge case. Federal agencies can’t make up their own rules and definitions. 

Will this affect any regulations, fee's we pay, etc?

 

[tvc184]

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Will this affect any regulations, fee's we pay, etc?

 

Regulations? Probably. 
 

Fees? Probably not. If Congress enacted a fee or if they gave an agency that authority to regulate a fee, it would probably be lawful.

It is like if Texas passed a law (which I think they did)  that said the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission has the authority to set the length and possession limits on fish, then they can do so because the legislature gave them that specific authority. If they were not given the specific authority, it would be unlawful. 

In this case a federal law was passed that the inspectors had to be on the fishing boats to regulate the commercial fishing catch. The law did not say who would pay for the federal inspectors to ride on the boats. They were federal employee so you would assume the federal government would pay their salary like any employer. The federal agency controlling fishing however, decided to make the commercial fishing fleet pay the salaries of the federal agents. Nothing in the law said that and nothing in the law gave the agency the authority to force a salary on a private company. Under the Chevron case from 1984, the Supreme Court (stupidly in my opinion) ruled that if there was any ambiguity in the law, a federal agency could basically fill in the blanks.

Now they have to use the rule of lenity or strict construction.  If a law is ambiguous or not clear, the courts should rule in favor of the person accused. The federal agency can’t make up their own opinion as law. 
 

[thetragichippy]

@tvc184 - thank you for the clarification. 

 

Monday should be an explosive day.....