Supreme Court: Chevron Deference

SoonerAviator said:
I'm not entirely sure why you think that's the case. The gov't we have is not what the founders designed 250 years ago, so maybe that's the problem. Cut the Federal gov't back down to the level it was designed to be and that'd be a good start. The US Constitution isn't that large of a document, so I'm not entirely sure how it impedes a "modern economy".
Click to expand...
I mean, Jefferson thought that a constitution shouldn't last for more than 20 years or so. So this one having been around for 250 doesn't seem to match his expectation. But otherwise, pretty sure you're ultra-narrow reading of the government and my being ok with the fact that such a reading is pretty modern isn't anything that's gonna get settled on an aviation forum. It is, however, excellent evidence to support my claim that we're not going to get a new constitution that functions well in a modern economy any time soon.
 
172andyou said:
I mean, Jefferson thought that a constitution shouldn't last for more than 20 years or so. So this one having been around for 250 doesn't seem to match his expectation. But otherwise, pretty sure you're ultra-narrow reading of the government and my being ok with the fact that such a reading is pretty modern isn't anything that's gonna get settled on an aviation forum. It is, however, excellent evidence to support my claim that we're not going to get a new constitution that functions well in a modern economy any time soon.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. What part of the Constitution is impeding a "modern economy"?
 
Obviously he's referring to the 16th amendment (authorized the income tax).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 
Part of the reason that ambiguous bills get passed is because both parties want it that way so that they can tell their supporters the most favorable/popular interpretation of legislation. SCOTUS striking down term limits on Congress-critters was very unfortunate as such would improve democracy, IMHO.
 
jbarrass said:
Obviously he's referring to the 16th amendment (authorized the income tax).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Click to expand...

They left out the words "not" and "never"
 
If you can find a copy of "The law that never was". That is a good read on the 16th.
 
Mikey52 said:
If you can find a copy of "The law that never was". That is a good read on the 16th.
Click to expand...
Looking for it.... not available at first glance, but I'll find it. Thanks for the point-out
 
I wouldn't expect them too. After all, who pays their salaries?
 
Mikey52 said:
I wouldn't expect them too. After all, who pays their salaries?
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of cases in which federal appeals courts have ruled against the federal government.
 
Skies aren't falling, the door has been opened to some fresh air.

It means if the FAA wants to regulate something, they'll have to go through the rule-making process and craft it sanely with public scrutiny rather than writing vague trash and ex post facto coming up with unsubstantiated interpretation.
 
Lindberg said:
Well, Chevron is no more. The FAA is no longer the last word on what ambiguous regulations mean. Let the skies fall.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what happens as challenges roll in. Let's keep in mind that "I won't defer" is not the same as "I don't agree." I can envision effects on some other agencies more easily than is see it with the FAA.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
It will be interesting to see what happens as challenges roll in. Let's keep in mind that "I won't defer" is not the same as "I don't agree."
Click to expand...

True, but it does mean courts and legislators will actually have to do their jobs, rather than having unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats do them.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but it does mean courts and legislators will actually have to do their jobs, rather than having unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats do them.
Click to expand...
To be fair, "unelected and unaccountable" seems to be an apt description of judges as well.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but it does mean courts and legislators will actually have to do their jobs, rather than having unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats do them.
Click to expand...
The courts were doing their job, but the enacted law as it stood required them to follow the agency's interpretation of their malformed regulations.
 
Baked Potato said:
To be fair, "unelected and unaccountable" seems to be an apt description of judges as well.
Click to expand...
Good point. But unless we are talking ideological differences, the biggest problem with both legislators and judges is subject-matter incompetence, not whether they are elected or not. We can probably find a good number of threads here complaining about that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It will be interesting to see what happens as challenges roll in. Let's keep in mind that "I won't defer" is not the same as "I don't agree." I can envision effects on some other agencies more easily than is see it with the FAA.
Click to expand...

Concur. Nothing in this ruling prevents any executive agency from doing something, be it a rule or something else and putting it out in the wild until challenged.
 
TCABM said:
Concur. Nothing in this ruling prevents any executive agency from doing something, be it a rule or something else and putting it out in the wild until challenged.
Click to expand...
And doesn't mean agency will necessarily get overturned. It just means that even a "reasonable" agency interpretation can be overturned if the court thinks the agency is wrong.
 
Half Fast said:
At the federal level, yes, but at least in FL we elect, or at least confirm, our judges up to the FL supreme court.
Click to expand...
Would disputes with an agency affected by this ruling ever end up in a state court?
 
midlifeflyer said:
...the biggest problem with both legislators and judges is subject-matter incompetence...
Click to expand...

Then they are obligated to seek and obtain expert advice to inform their legislating and judging. That's part of the their jobs.

And let's be clear on that point: even when Congress has been very specific with expert technical limitations in a law, the agencies have ignored it and done as they pleased, relying on Chevron deference. The ATF bump stock rules are a perfect example of this, as Congress had clearly defined "machine gun" but ATF ignored it and redefined it to create a new regulation out of the air.

Chevron has allowed the agencies to twist and turn and spin rules as it suits them and an administration, so that one day they say bump stocks are legal and the next day they say they aren't, turning law-abiding people into felons overnight. Similar crap through all the agencies leaves people not knowing what the law might be on any given day, and subject to fines and even incarceration based upon the whims of whatever bureaucrat happens to have the job today.

This puts law-making back into Congress' lap where it belongs.
 
Half Fast said:
Don't know. State agencies would, certainly.
Click to expand...
I don't think this ruling affects state agencies (though I'm willing to be corrected).

I do see the narrative a lot where this takes power away from "unelected, unaccountable" bureaucrats (to use your words) but to me that also describes the federal court system, who has the burden of interpreting the statutes, regardless of whether their origin is from Congress or an agency.

I don't know that it's possible for any law to be written so clearly and completely that it can foresee any possible interpretation, contingency, or mitigating factor, thus preventing any ambiguity about its meaning. Even the simplest laws (take speed limits, for example) still see hundreds of court cases each day where applicability to a specific situation is questioned.
 
Baked Potato said:
I do see the narrative a lot where this takes power away from "unelected, unaccountable" bureaucrats (to use your words) but to me that also describes the federal court system, who has the burden of interpreting the statutes, regardless of whether their origin is from Congress or an agency.
Click to expand...

Let's be a little more specific. This takes the [specific power to write new legislation in the form of rules] away from "unelected, unaccountable" [agency leaders and personnel] and puts it pack in the hands of the elected legislative branch.

That Supreme Court judges are unelected is a most tenuous connection.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Let's be a little more specific. This takes the [specific power to write new legislation in the form of rules] away from "unelected, unaccountable" [agency leaders and personnel] and puts it pack in the hands of the elected legislative branch.

That Supreme Court judges are unelected is a most tenuous connection.
Click to expand...
It's not tenuous when the courts are the ones who are charged with interpreting the statutes.
 
Half Fast said:
Then they are obligated to seek and obtain expert advice to inform their legislating and judging. That's part of the their jobs.
Click to expand...
I agree with that as an unrealistic ideal for the legislative process, but not about judging. In the case of the judicial process, it's up to the litigants to provide both evidence and expert information to educate the court, just like any litigation which deals with a subject requiring expertise.
 
Baked Potato said:
It's not tenuous when the courts are the ones who are charged with interpreting the statutes.
Click to expand...
I grew up in a judge elected state; and practiced in both appointed and hybrid states in addition to the federal courts. One can argue back and forth forever about whether elected judges or appointed judges or some hybrid produces better decisions. One can even cite solid examples to support whatever position one wants to take.
 
Last edited:
Baked Potato said:
I don't know that it's possible for any law to be written so clearly and completely that it can foresee any possible interpretation, contingency, or mitigating factor, thus preventing any ambiguity about its meaning.
Click to expand...

This is true, but there is a doctrine in criminal law that whenever there is ambiguity in the law, the court should rule with the interpretation most favorable to the defendent and least favorable to the state. Google "rule of lenity" and you'll find details.

Chevron has made this doctrine completely backwards for civil law, and because agencies don't have to publish opinions a priori, the regulations have the effect of being ex post facto laws. IOW, the agency doesn't have to publish their interpretation before you do something you think is perfectly legal; they can bust you and then make up their interpretation on the fly and you can be subjected to substantial penalties on their whim.
 
midlifeflyer said:
One can argue back and forth forever about whether elected judges or appointed judges or some hybrid produces better decisions. One can even cite solid examples to support whatever position you want to take.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I'd say the same about cabinet appointees, agency chairpersons, administrative law judges, etc...

I'm just not sure that holding one's status as "elected" as the gold standard is really the best measure when it comes to technical matters. I certainly did not elect some dude from a tiny district in Wyoming who may have power on some congressional committee that creates laws that directly affect me in MD.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In the case of the judicial process, it's up to the litigants to provide both evidence and expert information to educate the court, just like any litigation which deals with a subject requiring expertise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Half Fast said:
This is true, but there is a doctrine in criminal law that whenever there is ambiguity in the law, the court should rule with the interpretation most favorable to the defendent and least favorable to the state. Google "rule of lenity" and you'll find details.
Click to expand...
I will look this up, thank you.

In light of emerging technologies or new situations though, are any of us confident in the agility or willingness of Congress to adapt sufficiently? After all, there are a finite number of Congresscritters and we all see complaints when one of them slips and says that they didn't read the entirety of a proposed law before voting on it.
 
Baked Potato said:
I will look this up, thank you.

In light of emerging technologies or new situations though, are any of us confident in the agility or willingness of Congress to adapt sufficiently? After all, there are a finite number of Congresscritters and we all see complaints when one of them slips and says that they didn't read the entirety of a proposed law before voting on it.
Click to expand...

Maybe we need shorter laws...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top