Supreme Court ruling on Chevron upends college sports law

[Obliviax]

For those interested in sports law. I am not sure I understand it but basically says the law that has been used to determine professionality in college sports has been upended

SCOTUS Chevron Rejection Could Upend NCAA, College Athlete Cases

SCOTUS ruled in Loper Bright that the era of administrative agency deference is over. This could greatly impact the NCAA.

www.sportico.com

 

[WeR0206]

For those interested in sports law. I am not sure I understand it but basically says the law that has been used to determine professionality in college sports has been upended

SCOTUS Chevron Rejection Could Upend NCAA, College Athlete Cases

SCOTUS ruled in Loper Bright that the era of administrative agency deference is over. This could greatly impact the NCAA.

www.sportico.com

It’s been used to justify executive branch overreach for all sorts of things including when OSHA tried to force people to get the covid shots and wear masks. This was huge ruling that will curtail unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch from abusing their power and violating separation of powers among the branches

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

For those interested in sports law. I am not sure I understand it but basically says the law that has been used to determine professionality in college sports has been upended

SCOTUS Chevron Rejection Could Upend NCAA, College Athlete Cases

SCOTUS ruled in Loper Bright that the era of administrative agency deference is over. This could greatly impact the NCAA.

www.sportico.com

God the lawyers in the U.S. gotta love the idiots on this Supreme Court. By the time they are done, every town, township, county, egg, sperm and clone-able cell will be able to sue every other of the aforementioned groups in court. Unless they decide that states rights prevail over all other rights and position all the others mentioned to state servitude. Monkeys 🐒 on acid 🤯 have taken over. 😂 tic I think.

 

[The Spin Meister]

God the lawyers in the U.S. gotta love the idiots on this Supreme Court. By the time they are done, every town, township, county, egg, sperm and clone-able cell will be able to sue every other of the aforementioned groups in court. Unless they decide that states rights prevail over all other rights and position all the others mentioned to state servitude. Monkeys 🐒 on acid 🤯 have taken over. 😂 tic I think.

Yeah……so much better having faceless career bureaucrats telling everyone how to live……or not live…… their lives🤷🏻‍♀️

 

[Lionsfan1000]

God the lawyers in the U.S. gotta love the idiots on this Supreme Court. By the time they are done, every town, township, county, egg, sperm and clone-able cell will be able to sue every other of the aforementioned groups in court. Unless they decide that states rights prevail over all other rights and position all the others mentioned to state servitude. Monkeys 🐒 on acid 🤯 have taken over. 😂 tic I think.

When governments violate basic constitutional rights based on poorly written laws, that is exactly what should happen.

 

[Obliviax]

When governments violate basic constitutional rights based on poorly written laws, that is exactly what should happen.

Agreed. Legislative branch needs to make the laws. If the research compels it, make the law. In the meantime, lots of confusion and billable hours.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

When governments violate basic constitutional rights based on poorly written laws, that is exactly what should happen.

Lol.. we have herd from the lawyers in the room..just a reminder...The pursuit of individual License is not a basic constitutional right. The legal litany of these unfit to serve will end up being a catastrophic waste of taxpayer money. No one is more protective of individual rights than me. My point is Large Corporations, and four levels of governments having power to void legitimate individual rights have impacted me and my associates in our endeavors than government agencies. In fact, I have used federal government agencies to pound back overreach by township, state, county, borough, parish overreach many times. The change to allow genuine individual rights cannot be managed by supreme Court individuals not equipped to handle the job (that is my only point)

 

[The Spin Meister]

Lol.. we have herd from the lawyers in the room..just a reminder...The pursuit of individual License is not a basic constitutional right. The legal litany of these unfit to serve will end up being a catastrophic waste of taxpayer money. No one is more protective of individual rights than me. My point is Large Corporations, and four levels of governments having power to void legitimate individual rights have impacted me and my associates in our endeavors than government agencies. In fact, I have used federal government agencies to pound back overreach by township, state, county, borough, parish overreach many times. The change to allow genuine individual rights cannot be managed by supreme Court individuals not equipped to handle the job (that is my only point)

The only thing they said is that faceless bureaucrats don’t have the right to regulate actions that weren’t legislated to them.

Want things regulated? Pass laws within the Constitution.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Lol.. we have herd from the lawyers in the room..just a reminder...The pursuit of individual License is not a basic constitutional right. The legal litany of these unfit to serve will end up being a catastrophic waste of taxpayer money. No one is more protective of individual rights than me. My point is Large Corporations, and four levels of governments having power to void legitimate individual rights have impacted me and my associates in our endeavors than government agencies. In fact, I have used federal government agencies to pound back overreach by township, state, county, borough, parish overreach many times. The change to allow genuine individual rights cannot be managed by supreme Court individuals not equipped to handle the job (that is my only point)

Waste of taxpayer money? LOL.

Dude... these agencies have so far overstepped their boundries it's crazy and costs the US billions of dollars of productivity.

Taxes only exist AFTER productivity.

 

[RickinDayton]

God the lawyers in the U.S. gotta love the idiots on this Supreme Court. By the time they are done, every town, township, county, egg, sperm and clone-able cell will be able to sue every other of the aforementioned groups in court. Unless they decide that states rights prevail over all other rights and position all the others mentioned to state servitude. Monkeys 🐒 on acid 🤯 have taken over. 😂 tic I think.

Obviously we differ on our view of the SCOTUS. I believe we are fortunate this court has constitutionally asute judges who are abiding by law and their recent rulings reflect push back on out of control unelected Federal employees. There been some "wins" for both political sides the last few sessions. This SCOTUS is interpreting the law instead of legislating. I respect your opinions though I sometimes disagree.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Waste of taxpayer money? LOL.

Dude... these agencies have so far overstepped their boundries it's crazy and costs the US billions of dollars of productivity.

Taxes only exist AFTER productivity.

Sure they have. (I'll pick a small one for you DUDE!!!!) But if my small business was saved 3.5 million on a single 8 lot development in 1987 by challenging the fraud of corrupt township and county and their illegal mandates using the EPA. Factoring that with my gross in 1987 dollars x all the business my size back then... How did the end buyers fair by getting fleeced by the good old boy local governments across the nation. Productivity.... State and local government virtuousity ... Er ah control and shake downs...
.lol! 🤣

 

[jferretti]

Agreed. Legislative branch needs to make the laws. If the research compels it, make the law. In the meantime, lots of confusion and billable hours.

Yea, sure. They can't even pass meaningful immigration laws. So we should now count on them to micromanage food and drugs, environmental science, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, immigration, communications, passports and lots of other everyday measures we live by.

Chevron was cited as binding precedent in over 70 Supreme Court cases going back decades and in over 18,000 lower court cases. So much for precedent.

And we just now took rule making from the scientists in the FDA and vested the power in the Courts, who like those bureaucrats you complain about are mostly unelected and answerable to nobody. Congress can act to constrain the federal agencies and limit their reach (they don't even do that). But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and vest all power with the Courts to oversee regulation without deference to the administrative agencies is pure folly.

Justice Clarance Thomas, in the bump stock decision, actually lifted verbatim an article on bump stocks from a right wing gun publication to define what a bump stock is in his published opinion. That's the level of oversight and rigor we can expect from the courts.

 

[jferretti]

Obviously we differ on our view of the SCOTUS. I believe we are fortunate this court has constitutionally asute judges who are abiding by law and their recent rulings reflect push back on out of control unelected Federal employees. There been some "wins" for both political sides the last few sessions. This SCOTUS is interpreting the law instead of legislating. I respect your opinions though I sometimes disagree.

Did they interpret the law by declaring Section V of the Voting Rights act dead? That provision was Congressionally authorized every seven years, with increasing voting margins when it came up for renewal. SCOTUS thwarted the will of Congress and declared the need for "preclearance under Section V" is no longer necessary. Straight up legislating from the bench.

 

[RickinDayton]

Yea, sure. They can't even pass meaningful immigration laws. So we should now count on them to micromanage food and drugs, environmental science, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, immigration, communications, passports and lots of other everyday measures we live by.

Chevron was cited as binding precedent in over 70 Supreme Court cases going back decades and in over 18,000 lower court cases. So much for precedent.

And we just now took rule making from the scientists in the FDA and vested the power in the Courts, who like those bureaucrats you complain about are mostly unelected and answerable to nobody. Congress can act to constrain the federal agencies and limit their reach (they don't even do that). But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and vest all power with the Courts to oversee regulation without deference to the administrative agencies is pure folly.

Justice Clarance Thomas, in the bump stock decision, actually lifted verbatim an article on bump stocks from a right wing gun publication to define what a bump stock is in his published opinion. That's the level of oversight and rigor we can expect from the courts.

One of the primary problems is the federal executive branch (often via executive orders) in concert with the federal agencies work against the legislative branch by ignoring the law(s) or their devised"regulations" dilute the law to favor lobbyists. Additionally we have all the executive (along with federal & state agencies) and legislative branches financially beholden to special interest lobbyists. In short, this constitutional Republic is floundering predominantly because we have no term limits at the federal level and former high ranking gov't/military officials become part of the lobbying machine or corporations wielding too much influence and feeding off of the gov't.

 

[Obliviax]

Yea, sure. They can't even pass meaningful immigration laws. So we should now count on them to micromanage food and drugs, environmental science, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, immigration, communications, passports and lots of other everyday measures we live by.

Chevron was cited as binding precedent in over 70 Supreme Court cases going back decades and in over 18,000 lower court cases. So much for precedent.

And we just now took rule making from the scientists in the FDA and vested the power in the Courts, who like those bureaucrats you complain about are mostly unelected and answerable to nobody. Congress can act to constrain the federal agencies and limit their reach (they don't even do that). But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and vest all power with the Courts to oversee regulation without deference to the administrative agencies is pure folly.

Justice Clarance Thomas, in the bump stock decision, actually lifted verbatim an article on bump stocks from a right wing gun publication to define what a bump stock is in his published opinion. That's the level of oversight and rigor we can expect from the courts.

I posted relative to college sports and will limit my conversation to that topic

 

[RickinDayton]

Did they interpret the law by declaring Section V of the Voting Rights act dead? That provision was Congressionally authorized every seven years, with increasing voting margins when it came up for renewal. SCOTUS thwarted the will of Congress and declared the need for "preclearance under Section V" is no longer necessary. Straight up legislating from the bench.

That is

Did they interpret the law by declaring Section V of the Voting Rights act dead? That provision was Congressionally authorized every seven years, with increasing voting margins when it came up for renewal. SCOTUS thwarted the will of Congress and declared the need for "preclearance under Section V" is no longer necessary. Straight up legislating from the bench.

Section V was passed in 1965 and intended to be temporary for covered states and counties which were not in full compliance and if they were to make changes they had to go through the DC Court or U.S. Attorney General. SCOTUS determined the temporary legislation had served its purpose.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Yea, sure. They can't even pass meaningful immigration laws. So we should now count on them to micromanage food and drugs, environmental science, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, immigration, communications, passports and lots of other everyday measures we live by.

Chevron was cited as binding precedent in over 70 Supreme Court cases going back decades and in over 18,000 lower court cases. So much for precedent.

And we just now took rule making from the scientists in the FDA and vested the power in the Courts, who like those bureaucrats you complain about are mostly unelected and answerable to nobody. Congress can act to constrain the federal agencies and limit their reach (they don't even do that). But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and vest all power with the Courts to oversee regulation without deference to the administrative agencies is pure folly.

Justice Clarance Thomas, in the bump stock decision, actually lifted verbatim an article on bump stocks from a right wing gun publication to define what a bump stock is in his published opinion. That's the level of oversight and rigor we can expect from the courts.

There is no perfect government solution. Congress, the court system and/or bureacracies are all full of incompetence, corruption, ideolologs, and ego maniacs. For the past several decades too much of the power has been entrenched in faceless career bureaucrats that answer to no one. Most can’t be dismissed even when there is a change in administration, or sweeping changes in Congress, or the majority of the populace has a change in position. The bureaucrats are the furthest from answering to the public.

Congress does a lousy job but at least people have a voice in who represents them. Congress changes hands from time to time resulting in self correcting from ideological shifts. The courts also have corrective mechanisms by an appeal process and by diverse jurisdictions creating opposing rulings which kicks in district courts and the Supreme Court.

But bureaucrats are embedded deep in various agencies with little oversight. Prior to the ruling they would just say ‘we have the right under Chevron’. Now they will need to strongly validate any rules they establish. There will be a huge influx of various legal actions now and it will be messy for a while. But it should be a huge improvement over time.

 

[WeR0206]

Yea, sure. They can't even pass meaningful immigration laws. So we should now count on them to micromanage food and drugs, environmental science, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, immigration, communications, passports and lots of other everyday measures we live by.

Chevron was cited as binding precedent in over 70 Supreme Court cases going back decades and in over 18,000 lower court cases. So much for precedent.

And we just now took rule making from the scientists in the FDA and vested the power in the Courts, who like those bureaucrats you complain about are mostly unelected and answerable to nobody. Congress can act to constrain the federal agencies and limit their reach (they don't even do that). But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and vest all power with the Courts to oversee regulation without deference to the administrative agencies is pure folly.

Justice Clarance Thomas, in the bump stock decision, actually lifted verbatim an article on bump stocks from a right wing gun publication to define what a bump stock is in his published opinion. That's the level of oversight and rigor we can expect from the courts.

The “scientists in the FDA” lulz…more like big pharma whores. Did you know that big pharma provides something like 40% of the budget for the FDA. That agency was captured by industry a looong time ago. If you still trust them and the CDC and NIH agencies overall after they fumbled, lied, and misrepresented their way through covid I don’t know what to tell you. Countless people died bc of their greed (cushy VP jobs waiting for them in the private sector if they play ball) and corruption.

Don’t even get me started on alphabet agencies demanding big tech censor people for “misinformation” thus violating the 1st amendment.

See below for a simple explanation if your smooth brain can’t comprehend why this was the right move.

 

[Katatonic]

Yeah……so much better having faceless career bureaucrats telling everyone how to live……or not live…… their lives🤷🏻‍♀️

Yeah, because wearing a mask is "so much more intrusive" than making pre-determined medical decisions for women....

 

[WeR0206]

Yeah, because wearing a mask is "so much more intrusive" than making pre-determined medical decisions for women....

Constant masking causes psychological and physiological damage. Killing another human isn’t a “medical decision” or healthcare (unless the mother’s life is physically in danger). Abortion was kicked back to the states where it should have always been so it could be decided by the residents of each state. Somehow it morphed into a “right” that was abused and used as a last ditch birth control bc people were negligent, drunk, etc.. It was also abused by disgusting orgs like planned parenthood who were caught red handed selling baby parts and organs (hence the recent push to normalize late term abortions aka infanticide so they can make more $$ from selling the more fully formed parts). Pure evil.

These People Are Evil And Sick: CA Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment That May Allow Abortions Up to Birth, Public Will Vote On It In Nov

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/06/28/california-legislature-passes-constitutional-amendment-for-abortions-up-to-birth The fact that the soulless ghouls promoting this abomination refuse to clarify if the amendment would allow abortions for any reason up to birth says all you need to know. The...

pennstate.forums.rivals.com

 

[Katatonic]

While there may be some psychological issues, etc. - it's a relatively small sacrifice compared to the lives that would be saved.

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (which are significantly more densely populated) came out of the pandemic with a much lower death rate per capita.

A fetus, especially an early stage fetus, isn't a human, and most states that have banned abortions don't have exceptions for the mother's health and some even for incest.

Plus, it's not going to stop at the state level, as they want a national ban.

They're also trying to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraception.

Funny how these "small govt"/local govt proponents change their mind when they can get their way, and that's not even counting all the state governors who have banned cities, local municipalities from passing laws over certain things.

 

[The Spin Meister]

While there may be some psychological issues, etc. - it's a relatively small sacrifice compared to the lives that would be saved.

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (which are significantly more densely populated) came out of the pandemic with a much lower death rate per capita.

Taiwan did it by restricting travel, taking temps of everyone entering country, and tracking contacts and movement. It wasn’t masks……

 

[The Spin Meister]

Yeah, because wearing a mask is "so much more intrusive" than making pre-determined medical decisions for women....

“I got a hang nail so I have to kill my 8 1/2 month baby!”😿

 

[WeR0206]

While there may be some psychological issues, etc. - it's a relatively small sacrifice compared to the lives that would be saved.

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (which are significantly more densely populated) came out of the pandemic with a much lower death rate per capita.

A fetus, especially an early stage fetus, isn't a human, and most states that have banned abortions don't have exceptions for the mother's health and some even for incest.

Plus, it's not going to stop at the state level, as they want a national ban.

They're also trying to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraception.

Funny how these "small govt"/local govt proponents change their mind when they can get their way, and that's not even counting all the state governors who have banned cities, local municipalities from passing laws over certain things.

Oh FFS. There is ZERO evidence masks do anything. They do more harm than good. If they did something we would have been using them every flu season. They were used during covid as part of a psyop to drive fear into people and obtain compliance. In 2018/2019 there was a WHO meta analysis of masks re: flu like illness and they found no benefit. Then magically in 2020 masks were the “savior.” Fancy that.

We can debate back-and-forth all night of exactly when the fetus turned into a human but 99.9% of people agree that by the time you get into the third trimester, that’s a damn human and it’s murder if you kill them. It’s absolute madness that the “progressives” are trying to normalize late term and post birth abortions, only a brainwashed moron would go along with something like that.

If there was a national ban it would be on something like late term abortions. Heaven forbid people can’t murder their fully developed babies anymore bc they’re too lazy to be a parent. Oh my God! If people don’t have the means to properly take care of their kid there are plenty of couples out there desperate to adopt a baby. Absolutely no reason to murder a baby.

Who is trying to ban contraceptives like condoms, etc. do you get all your talking points from MSNBC and CNN or something? What the hell are you even talking about? Do yourself a favor and turn off the mainstream media for a couple days. It’ll do you a lot of good

 

[Obliviax]

Taiwan did it by restricting travel, taking temps of everyone entering country, and tracking contacts and movement. It wasn’t masks……

Obesity

 

[jimarnp]

The “scientists in the FDA” lulz…more like big pharma whores. Did you know that big pharma provides something like 40% of the budget for the FDA. That agency was captured by industry a looong time ago. If you still trust them and the CDC and NIH agencies overall after they fumbled, lied, and misrepresented their way through covid I don’t know what to tell you. Countless people died bc of their greed (cushy VP jobs waiting for them in the private sector if they play ball) and corruption.

Don’t even get me started on alphabet agencies demanding big tech censor people for “misinformation” thus violating the 1st amendment.

See below for a simple explanation if your smooth brain can’t comprehend why this was the right move.

View embedded media

Saw this clip the other day. It’s the best layman friendly assessment I have seen. At the fundamental level, constitutional power was ceded to non elected officials. That is/was idiocy, and has been corrected. —Those who are elected need to do their constitutionally mandated jobs, and they will be directly responsible to the electorate ….no bureaucratic “buffers”

 

[Obliviax]

Saw this clip the other day. It’s the best layman friendly assessment I have seen. At the fundamental level, constitutional power was ceded to non elected officials. That is/was idiocy, and has been corrected. —Those who are elected need to do their constitutionally mandated jobs, and they will be directly responsible to the electorate ….no bureaucratic “buffers”

Here is the best summary I’ve seen:


Nobody ever elected Fauci or Birx. And for every Fauci or Birx you know, there are a thousand just like them that you don't know lurking in every nook and cranny of your over-regulated life.

 

[PaoliLion]

Saw this clip the other day. It’s the best layman friendly assessment I have seen. At the fundamental level, constitutional power was ceded to non elected officials. That is/was idiocy, and has been corrected. —Those who are elected need to do their constitutionally mandated jobs, and they will be directly responsible to the electorate ….no bureaucratic “buffers”

LOL, wut??

Chevron set the precedent that unelected, non-expert and highly politicized judges should defer to an agencies interpretation of regulations, provided they’re reasonable. The intent of this new Supreme Court ruling is to put the power into the hands of unelected, non-expect and highly politicized judges to paralyze the ability of institutions like the EPA to enforce environment regulations, the SEC to enforce securities/financial market regulations, etc. Dumb ass

 

[NC2017]

God the lawyers in the U.S. gotta love the idiots on this Supreme Court. By the time they are done, every town, township, county, egg, sperm and clone-able cell will be able to sue every other of the aforementioned groups in court. Unless they decide that states rights prevail over all other rights and position all the others mentioned to state servitude. Monkeys 🐒 on acid 🤯 have taken over. 😂 tic I think.

 

[PaoliLion]

Here’s a good summary for the people who have brain damage on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/s/LfSPRoL0ie

 

[Obliviax]

Here’s a good summary for the people who have brain damage on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/s/LfSPRoL0ie

That is a very good review. Two exceptions.

The first is his ‘downside’ that this would be expensive by the federal govt to sue. Total BS. The govt has unlimited power and resources. Who doesn’t are companies and people. His second issue he talks about putting asbestos in water because the law was not specific. Easy, pass a law. At least it holds someone accountable. Today, modify is accountable (see Covid circa 2020/3)

 

[Aardvark86]

G'day.

First, kudos to the authors of the piece for trying to come up with an interesting angle on chevron.

Second, I tend to think their alarm is slightly overstated. often the referenced agencies have been given specific rulemaking grants, and some of the issues noted (employee status) aren't exactly novel.

Third, most people are wildly misconstruing what the case does and does not do. It does not undercut deference with respect to factual findings or policy choices. It only eliminates deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes to justify those policy choices.

For my money, here's the most important practical implication: Under Chevron, a political appointee says to his/her general counsel (often after having been denied authority to do something or unable to secure it), "Find me a plausible legal theory to support what i want to do." And the general counsel would do just that - they'd come up with Rube Goldberg reasoning that was plausible, and therefore sustainable, even though everyone would agree it wasn't remotely the best statutory interpretation. Now, under Relentless/Loper Bright, the agency general counsel has one legitimate role: to answer the question "what is the limit of the authority I've been granted?"

 

[The Spin Meister]

G'day.

First, kudos to the authors of the piece for trying to come up with an interesting angle on chevron.

Second, I tend to think their alarm is slightly overstated. often the referenced agencies have been given specific rulemaking grants, and some of the issues noted (employee status) aren't exactly novel.

Third, most people are wildly misconstruing what the case does and does not do. It does not undercut deference with respect to factual findings or policy choices. It only eliminates deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes to justify those policy choices.

For my money, here's the most important practical implication: Under Chevron, a political appointee says to his/her general counsel (often after having been denied authority to do something or unable to secure it), "Find me a plausible legal theory to support what i want to do." And the general counsel would do just that - they'd come up with Rube Goldberg reasoning that was plausible, and therefore sustainable, even though everyone would agree it wasn't remotely the best statutory interpretation. Now, under Relentless/Loper Bright, the agency general counsel has one legitimate role: to answer the question "what is the limit of the authority I've been granted?"

Was with you until the final line. No big shot bureaucrat will ever ask what are my limits. It will always be a mandate to find ways to do what he/she wants.

 

[Aardvark86]

Was with you until the final line. No big shot bureaucrat will ever ask what are my limits. It will always be a mandate to find ways to do what he/she wants.

Oh they won’t ask that. But that’s all the gc can ethically answer. Change “I” to “the Secretary” if you must.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Productivity will surely be enhanced by adding jury trials to the (for example) FEC fraud cases. Productively, attorneys billable court hours will rise as the the time for cases elongates .. jury picking etc... taxpayers bend over and spread your legs wider

 

[The Spin Meister]

Oh they won’t ask that. But that’s all the gc can ethically answer. Change “I” to “the Secretary” if you must.

“ethically”….,, you are one funny guy!😹

 

[jjw165]

Productivity will surely be enhanced by adding jury trials to the (for example) FEC fraud cases. Productively, attorneys billable court hours will rise as the the time for cases elongates .. jury picking etc... taxpayers bend over and spread your legs wider

Judges are supposed to interpret laws. Bureaucrats leading the federal agencies who will always give themselves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to vaguely written laws are not.

The overturning of Chevron deference has been in the works for several years. It was coming down the pike eventually. Those in these federal agencies have been aware of this and began to understand that time was running out on the clock. They will need to adjust accordingly.

 

[Aardvark86]

Productivity will surely be enhanced by adding jury trials to the (for example) FEC fraud cases. Productively, attorneys billable court hours will rise as the the time for cases elongates .. jury picking etc... taxpayers bend over and spread your legs wider

Yeah screw that whole 7th amendment thing. (But kudos to your rightful recognition of the fraud limit).

Ps - wait til tomorrow when Alito rules that the statute of limitations to challenge an agency rule doesn’t start until you’re injured by it
Either way I find it amusing that you think government agrncies lack leverage on regulatory enforcement matters. To the contrary they generally think that mere leverage is the same as good lawyering.

 

[Obliviax]

Spike Cohen wrote up the lynchpin case that I think is very clarifying:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013. Why did they think they could get away with just charging people without any legal authorization? Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it. It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired. ....It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail, you go. That's what Chevron Deference was. ....

 

[The Spin Meister]

Spike Cohen wrote up the lynchpin case that I think is very clarifying:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013. Why did they think they could get away with just charging people without any legal authorization? Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it. It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired. ....It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail, you go. That's what Chevron Deference was. ....

Good analysis but it was even worse.

When Congress passes major legislation it usually takes a year or more before it takes affect because the relevant agencies have to write the enacting regulations. Congress doesn’t get very granular so the agencies do thst work.

Think the Corps of Engineers and ghe ‘navigable waters’ phrase. They were empowered to regulate all navigable waters but that term wasn’t defined. To normal people that would mean Estes you could put on a boat or even a canoe.

But that left huge areas unregulated. So regulators greatly expanded it. It now means any wetlands, mud puddle, gulch, or dry river bed. ..,..,because water from those may at some point work it’s way into a creek and or a river.

So in effect, under Chevron deference, agencies had the power to write their own regulations and then they alone had the power to rule if the regs were correct. So they are not only judge and jury but also the authors of their own rules.

Edit: have no idea if the ‘navigable waters’ overreach will be affected but it was the best example that I could think of.