Repost from 5/24/23 -
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.
We are seeing history in the making as the Supreme Court is looking to end Chevron deference that could end executive agency/ATF overreach -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12617217
“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct one of the most consequential judicial errors in a generation.
Chevron deference has proven corrosive to the American system of checks and balances and directly contributed to an unaccountable executive branch, overbearing bureaucracy, and runaway regulation,” - Cause of Action Institute counsel Ryan Mulvey
Even Politico agrees
-
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12617997
Supreme Court move could spell doom for power of federal regulators ...
taking up a case squarely aimed at killing off ... the precedent that has come to be known as Chevron deference: the principle that courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions in congressional statutes and judges should refrain from crafting their own reading of the laws ... Overturning the doctrine...
Supreme Court’s move is another signal that the court’s [Originalists] have not tired in their efforts to weaken the administrative state.
... The Supreme Court in recent years has moved away from
Chevron ... In the past six years, agencies lost 70 percent of Supreme Court cases that addressed Chevron ... That includes
last year's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, which strengthened and for the
first time named the "major questions" doctrine as a way to strike down regulations.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led a coalition of red states ... "
Congress should pass laws, judges should construe them, and
unelected bureaucrats should stick to their job of just implementing those laws—not rewriting them"
And just as the Supreme Court made history last year with Bruen ruling
eliminating the "two step" approach and now
mandating the "text and history" only approach for Second Amendment cases along with justice Thomas stating the "Second Amendment is not a second class right",
we may see Supreme Court making history again for Loper v. Raimondo based on words justice Thomas wrote for Baldwin v US specific to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to end Chevron deference and executive agency/ATF overreach -
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-402_o75p.pdf
... “the
judicial power, as originally understood, requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws.” ... The
Framers anticipated that legal texts would sometimes be ambiguous, and they understood the judicial power “to include the power to resolve these ambiguities over time” in judicial proceedings
... Chevron also gives federal agencies unconstitutional power. Executive agencies enjoy only “the executive Power.” ... But
when they receive Chevron deference, they arguably exercise “[t]he judicial Power of the United States,” which is vested in the courts. Chevron cannot be salvaged by saying instead that agencies are “engaged in the ‘formulation of policy.’” ...
If that is true, then agencies are unconstitutionally exercising “legislative Powers” vested in Congress.
... This apparent abdication by the Judiciary and usurpation by the Executive is not a harmless transfer of power. The
Constitution carefully imposes structural constraints on all three branches, and the exercise of power free of those accompanying restraints subverts the design of the Constitution’s ratifiers. The
Constitution shielded judges from both the “external threats” of politics and “the ‘internal threat’ of ‘human will’” by providing tenure and salary protections
The
Constitution also restricted the legislative power by dividing it between two Houses that check each other, one of which was kept close to the people through biennial elections ...
When the Executive exercises judicial or legislative power, however, it does so largely free of these safeguards. The Executive is not insulated from external threats, and it is by definition an agent of will, not judgment [Maybe swayed by campaign donors/special interests]. The Executive also faces election less frequently than do Members of the House, and its power is vested in a single person. Perhaps
worst of all, Chevron deference undermines the ability of the Judiciary to perform its checking function on the other branches.
The
Founders expected that the Federal Government’s powers would remain separated—and the people’s liberty secure—only if the branches could check each other ...
When the Executive is free to dictate the outcome of cases through erroneous interpretations, the courts cannot check the Executive by applying the correct interpretation of the law. Chevron deference appears to be inappropriate in many cases for another reason: It is likely contrary to the APA, “which [Chevron] did not even bother to cite.”
The APA provides that, “[t]o the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”
... When the APA was enacted, the meaning of a statute was considered a question of law ... “
places the court’s duty to interpret statutes on an equal footing with its duty to interpret the Constitution, and courts never defer to agencies in reading the Constitution.” ... Finally, the deferential standards of review elsewhere in the APA—which require courts to “
hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion ..."
...
Chevron requires judges to surrender their independent judgment to the will of the Executive ... Chevron transfers power to agencies ... gives agencies the power to effectively overrule judicial precedents. Chevron withdraws a crucial check on the Executive from the separation of powers ... gives the Executive the ability to neutralize a previously exercised check by the Judiciary.
...
Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes ... Chevron ... poignantly lays bare the flaws of our entire executive-deference jurisprudence
, but did I miss something? How did this thread on 80% morph into braces
