Supreme Court: Chevron Deference

Maybe we need shorter laws...
Hah. But won't that will just make them more ambiguous, especially in technical issues? (Imagine laws defining machine guns, for example)

(Knowing very well that I should have predicted a bunch of replies saying that we shouldn't have laws governing machine guns)
 
Hah. But won't that will just make them more ambiguous, especially in technical issues? (Imagine laws defining machine guns, for example)

(Knowing very well that I should have predicted a bunch of replies saying that we shouldn't have laws governing machine guns)

I don't know. I think 'Shall not be infringed' is very definitive and quite succinct.
 
I don't know. I think 'Shall not be infringed' is very definitive and quite succinct.
It's not though. And why it has had to be "re-interpreted" many times over the years by both elected officials and judges. Certainly individuals should not be able to own nuclear weapons in their homes.
 
I agree, but courts regularly do their own research, too. Many, many USSC opinions are filled with research, doctrine, history, etc., that was not presented by litigants.
On the SCOTUS level with a bunch to top-tier law student law clerks where the cases they choose to hear generally have policy ramifications beyond the immediate case, yes as to legal research. But even then, not so much in matters of expert opinion on technical subjects. That moves them from a judicial to an investigative role.
 
Please clarify.

There are new technologies that fall under the umbrella of existing statutes, thus requiring the law to be revised or interpreted again by either lawmakers or agencies overseeing said technologies, hence my earlier comments about Congress being agile enough to respond to them.

There are an infinite number of items that can be considered "arms" that are available today that were inconceivable when the 2nd amendment was drafted, which necessitated legislative or judicial clarity again and again over the years. It's not as cut-and-dry as you'd like it to be, nor the t-shirts commonly seen at gun shows would lead one to believe.

Again - is a nuclear weapon considered an "arm"? And should your neighbor be able to own one?
 
I'd rather not... get into an argument against ROC.
The specific subject matter is beside the point though. I was illustrating that shorter laws (or fewer laws) do not necessarily make them easier to interpret, and really only introduces ambiguity.
 
Please clarify.

There are new technologies that fall under the umbrella of existing statutes, thus requiring the law to be revised or interpreted again by either lawmakers or agencies overseeing said technologies, hence my earlier comments about Congress being agile enough to respond to them.

There are an infinite number of items that can be considered "arms" that are available today that were inconceivable when the 2nd amendment was drafted, which necessitated legislative or judicial clarity again and again over the years. It's not as cut-and-dry as you'd like it to be, nor the t-shirts commonly seen at gun shows would lead one to believe.

Again - is a nuclear weapon considered an "arm"? And should your neighbor be able to own one?

Can you carry one in a purse?
 
How are we going to deal with deep submersible accidents and bridge collapses now that our nation's experts are shifting their focus to regulatory agency processes?
 
Well the 2a says keep and bear arms, so if you can't bear it, it may not be an arm, but something else.
 
Well the 2a says keep and bear arms, so if you can't bear it, it may not be an arm, but something else.
If only our founding fathers were prescient enough to define the word "bear" for us ;)

But, after thinking of all possible scenarios, no reasonable person (I'm sure) would argue that there could be no restrictions levied on even this definition. Should I be able to bring a carry-on full of live grenades onto a commercial flight? Should my kid be able to bring a loaded gun to his elementary school classes? Should a convicted murderer be able to bring a machine gun into his sentencing at the courthouse?

Pretending that a simple clause such as "shall not be infringed" precludes any further interpretation or limitations is absurd.
 
I believe they were following USSC direction (Chevron), not law created by Congress.
It was an interpretation of the enacted Administrative Procedures Act, however Roberts in this instance found it the other way.
 
I agree, but courts regularly do their own research, too. Many, many USSC opinions are filled with research, doctrine, history, etc., that was not presented by litigants.
Not really. The research is more on the legal principles that the court is deciding. They don't and really are not supposed to be going out and doing their own investigation into the case facts other than as presented by the parties.
 
Before this gets locked, any predictions/speculation on what if anything might change for us as far as the FAA?
 
"Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”"

Perfect, if those two dissent then it's a good thing.
 
"Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”"

Perfect, if those two dissent then it's a good thing.

Perfect, the legal system could use a massive shock. :)
 
"Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”"

Perfect, if those two dissent then it's a good thing.

T think that is 3 of them.
 
"Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”"

Perfect, if those two dissent then it's a good thing.
I don’t remember seeing the “It’s too much work to do it right” clause in the Constitution.
 
Before this gets locked, any predictions/speculation on what if anything might change for us as far as the FAA?
I wonder if anyone will be able to successfully challenge the FAA’s self designation as a “public health authority”
 
Last edited:
And the Feds have not given up any now. The executive branch and its minions routinely ignore court rulings. We still have years of litigation ahead on the Chevron issue--but it's a start on limiting the power of the executive branch back to constitutional levels.
 
If only our founding fathers were prescient enough to define the word "bear" for us ;)

But, after thinking of all possible scenarios, no reasonable person (I'm sure) would argue that there could be no restrictions levied on even this definition. Should I be able to bring a carry-on full of live grenades onto a commercial flight? Should my kid be able to bring a loaded gun to his elementary school classes? Should a convicted murderer be able to bring a machine gun into his sentencing at the courthouse?

Pretending that a simple clause such as "shall not be infringed" precludes any further interpretation or limitations is absurd.
 
Before this gets locked, any predictions/speculation on what if anything might change for us as far as the FAA?

I have a fond (but probably misplaced) hope that in years to come it might rein in the FAA’s ever-expanding definition of compensation.
 
Do you believe it now?
Nope. They just tried to reign in the 2A stuff with one of the recent rulings. They'll find a way to keep it from damaging their broader interests. A comprehensive win won't happen until mass ideological sensibility returns to the general populace, and they've still got the education system in their grip, so not holding my breath. We have the rulers we deserve, not the ones we want.
 
Nope. They just tried to reign in the 2A stuff with one of the recent rulings.

The USSC just shot down (pun intended) the BATFE's redefinition of machine gun to incorporate bump stocks, saying that such a change was Congress' job, not the bureau's. Perfectly in step with the elimination of Chevron deference.

I'm hopeful that something similar will happen with pistol braces.
 
49 USC, Subtitle VII- Aviation Programs.

These are the laws written and passed by congress, approved by the senate and signed by the Executive. From these laws 14 CFR was developed to implement the laws.
 
And the Feds have not given up any now. The executive branch and its minions routinely ignore court rulings. We still have years of litigation ahead on the Chevron issue--but it's a start on limiting the power of the executive branch back to constitutional levels.
That is refreshing..... ;)
 
49 USC, Subtitle VII- Aviation Programs.

These are the laws written and passed by congress, approved by the senate and signed by the Executive. From these laws 14 CFR was developed to implement the laws.
Except when they're not....

The issues arise when there is ambiguity in the laws. Now, post Chevron, the laws will be interpreted by the courts, not the agency bureaucrats. For example, when you see a Chief counsels opinion letter and go WTF, you generally have to treat is as a valid regulation since they had deference in enforcement. Now if they're off the reservation it can be challenged on a more level playing field. Though it'll still be a very expensive process.

The changes won't be sudden, but the bureaucrats will have to think about whether they can win a fight on a (more) level playing field in the courts when they make some of the sillier rules. The main victory methinks will be a lot less bullying.

There are a lot of people that think administrative overreach is a significant problem. This helps
 
Except when they're not....

What part of 49USC Subtitle VII was not written and voted on by both houses and signed into law by the President?

You are confusing 49 USC with 14 CFR. One is civil law and one is administrative. Your statement is correct on the administrative side. This is where people don't understand the differences and how it's applied. The 49 USC does give the SoT and the FAA Administrator the right to create the administrative laws to comply with the civil law.

Where Chevron comes into play is when it's challenged in court if the administrative part does indeed follow the USC.

And you are right, it's going to be expensive and time consuming. There's not going to be any quick remedies or drastic changes to the CFR.
 
Except when they're not....

The issues arise when there is ambiguity in the laws. Now, post Chevron, the laws will be interpreted by the courts, not the agency bureaucrats. For example, when you see a Chief counsels opinion letter and go WTF, you generally have to treat is as a valid regulation since they had deference in enforcement. Now if they're off the reservation it can be challenged on a more level playing field. Though it'll still be a very expensive process.

The changes won't be sudden, but the bureaucrats will have to think about whether they can win a fight on a (more) level playing field in the courts when they make some of the sillier rules. The main victory methinks will be a lot less bullying.

There are a lot of people that think administrative overreach is a significant problem. This helps
It's the politicians as much as the bureaucrats. Each administration comes in with an agenda, and appoints the top 2 or 3 tiers of agency leadership to enact it. Career bureaucrats can try to resist, but the appointees call the shots on major policy. The next crew comes in and reverses everything.
Congress is typically too closely divided to do much about it other than hold hearings to express their indignation.
Laws will still be interpreted by agencies. All Chevron does is say courts will not automatically defer to that.
Sounds like a messed up system, but it's really just democracy at work. Nobody has come up with anything better. Even if it does sometimes result in really embarrassing televised debates between 2 buffoons, with a 3rd buffoon live streaming in.
 
Last edited:
What part of 49USC Subtitle VII was not written and voted on by both houses and signed into law by the President?
All of it passed and was signed, but Chevron doesn't touch the underlying laws.
You are confusing 49 USC with 14 CFR. One is civil law and one is administrative. Your statement is correct on the administrative side. This is where people don't understand the differences and how it's applied. The 49 USC does give the SoT and the FAA Administrator the right to create the administrative laws to comply with the civil law.
Not confused at all. It applies to the admin side, like you said. As long as they "comply with the civil law" nothing changed. Courts are full of cases where the prosecution says someone violated the law and the defendant says nope. This provides a much needed leveling of the playing field.
Where Chevron comes into play is when it's challenged in court if the administrative part does indeed follow the USC.
Yup.
And you are right, it's going to be expensive and time consuming. There's not going to be any quick remedies or drastic changes to the CFR.
Yup.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top