Supreme Court ruling on Chevron upends college sports law

[Obliviax]

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 say into a creek and the 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.

totally agree. Of course, the other side of the coin is a challenge. Taking your "navigable waters" example, this ebbs and flows (pardon the pun) based on natural changes to bodies of water. There is no way congress can keep up. And in today's world, the simple act of being accused is more of a penalty than actually being guilty in both criminal and civil cases.

the government's task of "one size fits all" just doesn't work in these cases. The only thing I can think of is that congress has to create a group that regularly evaluates these definitions and standards. The fight is in committee and the larger body simply rubber stamps their findings once an overview is given and they can find common ground.

 

[The Spin Meister]

totally agree. Of course, the other side of the coin is a challenge. Taking your "navigable waters" example, this ebbs and flows (pardon the pun) based on natural changes to bodies of water. There is no way congress can keep up. And in today's world, the simple act of being accused is more of a penalty than actually being guilty in both criminal and civil cases.

the government's task of "one size fits all" just doesn't work in these cases. The only thing I can think of is that congress has to create a group that regularly evaluates these definitions and standards. The fight is in committee and the larger body simply rubber stamps their findings once an overview is given and they can find common ground.

Yes, Congress cannot be expected to know and act on every detail. Certainly too cumbersome. But the status quo was hideous.

They need to come up with options. A separate regulatory oversight committee. Perhaps even Cabinet level.

Agencies can write regs but need Congressional approval before enactment.

The state association that I worked with had a five year sunset rule. Every committee and subcommittee had to justify its existence to the BoD every five years or cease to exist.

Each committee should have a regulatory staff investigating regs and their impact.

🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏿‍♂️😹🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏻‍♀️

 

[wilbury]

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.

The navigable waters issue is a good one but it only pertains to what the Federal Government regulates, which was always meant to be larger bodies of water of national interest. It doesn't leave a gap. States regulate everything else (at least almost all do). There's no reason for me to get a permit from the US Army Corp and PA DEP if I'm impacting a small wetland in central Pennsylvania. The Corps doesn't even want to be involved in projects like this. They hate it.

 

[Obliviax]

Yes, Congress cannot be expected to know and act on every detail. Certainly too cumbersome. But the status quo was hideous.

They need to come up with options. A separate regulatory oversight committee. Perhaps even Cabinet level.

Agencies can write regs but need Congressional approval before enactment.

The state association that I worked with had a five year sunset rule. Every committee and subcommittee had to justify its existence to the BoD every five years or cease to exist.

Each committee should have a regulatory staff investigating regs and their impact.

🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏿‍♂️😹🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏻‍♀️

I suspect the courts will end up deciding what is a "navigate water" (et all) based on court hearings and evidence. That isn't ideal. Most would yield to the so-called "experts" unless the opposition can clearly prove that the "experts" are wrong. At least this wouldn't take an act of congress or experts that are "in the tank" to Fed Govts to get additional research grants.

 

[Obliviax]

The navigable waters issue is a good one but it only pertains to what the Federal Government regulates, which was always meant to be larger bodies of water of national interest. It doesn't leave a gap. States regulate everything else (at least almost all do). There's no reason for me to get a permit from the US Army Corp and PA DEP if I'm impacting a small wetland in central Pennsylvania. The Corps doesn't even want to be involved in projects like this. They hate it.

Agreed.

Living on Lake Erie, it became next to impossible to do anything on the waterfront due to over regulations and disputes on the land owners property line. (property lines were not consistent so the state/feds needed to make them consistent. I have a friend who spent a million $ on a boat house and breakwater erosion control because he owned land up to the water line by law. The govt wanted to own shoreline protection so wanted to take two feet above water line. That meant they took his entire $1m structure.). Recently, because of erosion, they've backed off and a handful of companies were able to get blanket permits for shoreline protection no matter where they put it. A few years ago, each project had to be approved on its own merit. Today, they have a template and process that is pre-approved. You just have to get the location approved to begin erosion control construction. That cut the cost by over half.

 

[b&w1987]

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.

If you ever had to deal with Federal and State agency bureaucrats redefining regulations you wouldn’t make such a stupid comment. People literally had no legal recourse because some unelected ass decided to redefine a regulation.

 

[Hotshoe]

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.

Lmao. So you get to determine when a fetus becomes a human? A fetus, at the zygote level, has human DNA.

 

[Jerry]

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. ....

That's a helpful explanation.

There was a commentary last week by a middle-of-the-road type observer...it made quite a splash...arguing that our present-day system is reminiscent in various ways of the 1980s Soviet Union, which was a decaying superpower whose internal rot finally culminated in total collapse.

One point of rough similarity is our own country's facade of power versus its reality of power. The facade is the constitutional framework of the government and ultimately...don't laugh...We The People. The reality is a vast network of judges, bureaucrats, regulators, staffers, lobbyists, influencers, and operatives -- none of them elected or accountable. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

 

[Obliviax]

That's a helpful explanation.

There was a commentary last week by a middle-of-the-road type observer...it made quite a splash...arguing that our present-day system is reminiscent in various ways of the 1980s Soviet Union, which was a decaying superpower whose internal rot finally culminated in total collapse.

One point of rough similarity is our own country's facade of power versus its reality of power. The facade is the constitutional framework of the government and ultimately...don't laugh...We The People. The reality is a vast network of judges, bureaucrats, regulators, staffers, lobbyists, influencers, and operatives -- none of them elected or accountable. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

Agreed. Someone posted it on X. It is really SCOTUS' way to reign in what got out of control in 2013. There has been this notion that "experts" know what they are talking about. But what we saw is that the "experts", especially during COVID, realized their power and seized it without being an "expert" (at best, lying at worst). I know of a person who had a small bridge that went over a creek on the way to his home. Over the years, it got a little jammed up and some cattails grew. After a big storm, the surge knocked out the support and he had to rebuild the bridge. As he was getting permits, someone noticed the cattails and his permit was turned down. What was a minor repair to a foundation on one of the pylons turned into a several hundred thousand dollar endeavor to find a way to build a bridge while preserving the wetland. So with the experts wanting to preserve wetlands, he now goes around and kills anything on his property that might resemble a wetland some day. He's got ~ 50 acres. I know another person that owned a small farm and when the father died, it wasn't maintained. After a few years, they rented the land to a large farmer to farm it. The problem was some cattails grew up in a low area and of the 25 acres, it was deemed only 10 were farmable. There was no way to appeal the decision.

We've also seen "experts" corrupted. I am talking about university professors who get research money from local, state and federal govts. They know they have to toe the line to get that money. It becomes group think.

The new ruling still allows the court to defer to "experts" but those opinions can be challenged and thrown out.

 

[RickinDayton]

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.

"good lawyering"? That is an issue in America.