SCOTUS to hear Chevron Deference case

[Gatsby]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3981417-supreme-court-to-consider-overruling-chevron-doctrine/

Based on some of their earlier comments, and on the results of the WV vs EPA case, I have some hope that Chevron deference will soon be a thing of the past.

 

[admin]

It's my understanding that Chevron deference doesn't even apply to ATF because Chevron deference specifically excludes criminal statutes.

 

[AZNOKAOI]

If the Supreme Court were to overrule or significantly modify the Chevron doctrine, it could potentially affect how the courts interpret laws related to the ATF and other federal agencies.

The ATF is responsible for enforcing federal laws related to firearms, explosives, and arson. Some of these laws have been challenged in court, and the courts have applied Chevron deference when interpreting the ATF's regulations and enforcement actions.

If the Supreme Court were to overrule Chevron, it could mean that the courts would no longer automatically defer to the ATF's interpretations of the laws it is responsible for enforcing. Instead, the courts would have more latitude to interpret those laws themselves, which could potentially lead to different outcomes in cases involving the ATF.

That being said, it's important to note that the Supreme Court has not yet overruled Chevron, so it's impossible to say for sure how it would affect the ATF or other federal agencies. Any changes to Chevron would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and it's likely that there would be a lot of debate and discussion about how to interpret laws related to federal agencies if Chevron were to be overruled.

 

[Gatsby]

[mention]admin[/mention] I put this in Off Topic specifically because it was bigger than ATF. This is about reining in abuses of power by Executive branch agencies. Which is why I mentioned WV v. EPA in my post; also nothing to do with ATF. I'm unclear on your point there. Delete the post or move it if you want.

more:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3986610-chevron-case-supreme-court-could-take-sledgehammer-to-agency-power/

 

[YNOTAZ]

It's my understanding that Chevron deference doesn't even apply to ATF because Chevron deference specifically excludes criminal statutes.

I think that's where the ATF's buggaboo comes into play. If they are writing a "rule" that includes criminal penalties they are writing a law. If they are only reinterpreting law or adding definitions, then thy are relying on Chevron doctrine.

I don't think ATF can eat out of both sides of that pie.

 

[admin]

@admin I put this in Off Topic specifically because it was bigger than ATF. This is about reining in abuses of power by Executive branch agencies. Which is why I mentioned WV v. EPA in my post; also nothing to do with ATF. I'm unclear on your point there. Delete the post or move it if you want.

more:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3986610-chevron-case-supreme-court-could-take-sledgehammer-to-agency-power/

Fair point - but even so, I wasn't trying to throw cold water on your post. I think that it's a great thing that Chevron may be constrained a bit more soon. I was only pointing out that a lot of people seem to equate what the ATF has been doing with bumpstocks, FRT's, braces, etc... to Chevron deference and just pointing out that it wouldn't be likely to have an effect on those, because they are criminal statutes. That's all.

 

[Gatsby]

got it; thanks for the clarification. This could be huge for decades to come.

 

[Gatsby]

Brown had recused herself from Loper Bright, so SCOTUS agreed to take on a second Chevron case, to be heard and ruled in tandem. I take this as a VERY good sign. There's been some talk (I don't have the articles anymore, sorry) that SCOTUS may return us to a nondelegation doctrine. In general, this session has been called an administrative state bonanza. Fingers crossed for some return to sanity guys. There's 9 total cases I'm watching like a hawk. This one strikes closest to home.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4254920-supreme-court-adds-second-case-in-battle-over-chevron-doctrine/

 

[Gatsby]

**Apologies; already posted in other area**

Both Loper Bright and Relentless rulings came out. Chevron Doctrine has been overturned. Probably the biggest ruling since EPA.

Holding: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council is overruled.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/relentless-inc-v-department-of-commerce/

This is a big day, guys.
Joe

 

[kenpoprofessor]

The next one they need to overturn is Wickard V. Filburn, get rid of Obama care, and let states operate on their own when selling goods in state. For us, that means no silencer registration if it's made and kept in state.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Gatsby]

Wickard V. Filburn is an embarrassment to cognitive thought process. Two main points: the grain could be regulated under the Commerce clause because even though he grew and fed it on his farm and no commerce was involved, growing it meant that he DIDN'T buy it so it affected commerce. And second, although the small amount he grew couldn't possibly impact the price, if everyone did that, it COULD!

How in the actual fukc could you come up with that bullshit and sleep at night?

So yeah, Clyde, I totally agree. I haven't looked closely at the October 24 term to see if that question is being asked. But the October 23 term has been productive in striking some sanity into the administrative state overreach.