Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Doctrine, Limits Agency Power
Submitted by MAGA Student
Posted 2 days ago
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has struck down the Chevron doctrine, a landmark decision that has been in place for nearly 40 years. The 6-3 decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, gave federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws, as long as their interpretations were reasonable. This doctrine was widely used, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times. However, critics argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should determine the meaning of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his 35-page ruling, called the Chevron doctrine "fundamentally misguided." He explained that the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out procedures for federal agencies and courts, directs courts to "decide legal questions by applying their own judgment." Therefore, Roberts concluded, "it remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says."
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion, criticized the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. She argued that agencies are better equipped to interpret regulatory laws due to their technical and scientific expertise. Kagan predicted that the ruling "will cause a massive shock to the legal system."
The ruling is part of a broader conservative effort to curtail the power of federal agencies, often referred to as the "war on the administrative state." In the 2023-24 term, the Supreme Court heard arguments in several cases challenging the power of federal agencies. In May, the court upheld the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last week, the court limited the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose fines in securities fraud cases.
The fishermen in the Chevron case were represented by conservative legal groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, linked to funding from billionaire and longtime anti-regulation advocate Charles Koch.
The decision has been applauded by those seeking to curtail the administrative state. Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, said, "By ending Chevron deference, the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach."
However, the ruling has been criticized by those who believe that agencies are better equipped to interpret complex, technical issues. Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, "The Supreme Court today says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute. That is a recipe for chaos."
The ruling is a significant victory for conservatives who have long sought to limit the power of federal agencies. It remains to be seen how the ruling will impact the legal system and the interpretation of federal laws.
Sources:
scotusblog.com
rumble.com
The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, gave federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws, as long as their interpretations were reasonable. This doctrine was widely used, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times. However, critics argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should determine the meaning of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his 35-page ruling, called the Chevron doctrine "fundamentally misguided." He explained that the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out procedures for federal agencies and courts, directs courts to "decide legal questions by applying their own judgment." Therefore, Roberts concluded, "it remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says."
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion, criticized the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. She argued that agencies are better equipped to interpret regulatory laws due to their technical and scientific expertise. Kagan predicted that the ruling "will cause a massive shock to the legal system."
The ruling is part of a broader conservative effort to curtail the power of federal agencies, often referred to as the "war on the administrative state." In the 2023-24 term, the Supreme Court heard arguments in several cases challenging the power of federal agencies. In May, the court upheld the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last week, the court limited the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose fines in securities fraud cases.
The fishermen in the Chevron case were represented by conservative legal groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, linked to funding from billionaire and longtime anti-regulation advocate Charles Koch.
The decision has been applauded by those seeking to curtail the administrative state. Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, said, "By ending Chevron deference, the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach."
However, the ruling has been criticized by those who believe that agencies are better equipped to interpret complex, technical issues. Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, "The Supreme Court today says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute. That is a recipe for chaos."
The ruling is a significant victory for conservatives who have long sought to limit the power of federal agencies. It remains to be seen how the ruling will impact the legal system and the interpretation of federal laws.
Sources:
scotusblog.com
rumble.com
