This is clearly a proper decision. The SCOTUS is tasked, Constitutionally, with determining the constitutionality of laws - whether laws passed are in compliance with the firm particularities of the Constitution.
The constitution clearly assigns particular powers to particular branches of government, powers which other branches are not allowed to usurp. Administrative agencies are arms of the Executive Branch, and therefore are not allowed to usurp the powers of Congress, which is tasked with creating new laws. Administrative agencies have routinely become accustomed to "interpreting" laws passed by congress in a manner that effectively created NEW laws, which the Executive is not allowed to do. The Executive Branch's remit is to execute congressionally created laws, not create new ones itself. It is called the Executive branch because it executes law, it is not supposed to create new law.
So the various "rulings" and "interpretations" of administrative agencies under the Executive Branch carry the FORCE of law, without having ever been passed by the authorized lawmaking body, Congress. That is clearly against the Constitution.
As an example, the FDA has "deemed" batteries to be tobacco, and that ruling carries the force of law without ever having been authorized by Congress. Batteries are made of metals and chemicals, like nickel, cadmium, cobalt, and lithium. I have never encountered a battery that contains so much as a molecule of tobacco, but legally the FDA "made it so" with the whisk of a pen when logically it is an absurdity.
Striking down Chevron Deference also has massive implications for agencies such as BATFE, which regularly creates new "laws" out of whole cloth simply by making a "ruling" or "determination". Congress clearly defines what constitutes a "firearm" in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and ever since then the BATFE has been creating new "machineguns" and "firearms" out of nothing. For example, a so-called "bump stock" has been classified as a "machinegun" by BATFE despite the fact that it has no bolt, no trigger, no receiver, no barrel, no chamber - in fact nothing at all that will fire a single round of ammunition by itself, much less multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger as the written and passed by Congress law requires.
A bump stock has no trigger to pull at all, much less one that will fire multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger it does not posses. Furthermore, a bump stock REQUIRES a separate pul of the trigger on a firearm to which it is attached for EACH round fired, which is specified in the law as written to NOT be a machinegun.
Now, I give no shits about bump stocks. I've never owned one, and never will. They are wasteful and turn a fine firearm into a useless and inaccurate spray hose. What I DO care about, however, is the law, who makes it, who enforces it, and that there is an eternal separation of powers between those two.
This ruling by the Supreme Court goes a long way to restore that constitutionally mandated separation of powers. I applaud it.
To those who make the spurious claim that "courts do not have the technical expertise to determine legality", they are simply and completely full of shit. The courts are the ONLY ones qualified to interpret what a law says. All judges started their careers as lawyers and worked their way up. A judge has a much more intimate knowledge of law and legal procedures than any other governmental agency, and the ONLY thing that matters in the interpretation of law is law itself. Other "technical matters" DO NOT, NEVER HAVE, and NEVER WILL enter into the equation of whether a law is legal or not.
That's my legal treatise for the day.
.
The constitution clearly assigns particular powers to particular branches of government, powers which other branches are not allowed to usurp. Administrative agencies are arms of the Executive Branch, and therefore are not allowed to usurp the powers of Congress, which is tasked with creating new laws. Administrative agencies have routinely become accustomed to "interpreting" laws passed by congress in a manner that effectively created NEW laws, which the Executive is not allowed to do. The Executive Branch's remit is to execute congressionally created laws, not create new ones itself. It is called the Executive branch because it executes law, it is not supposed to create new law.
So the various "rulings" and "interpretations" of administrative agencies under the Executive Branch carry the FORCE of law, without having ever been passed by the authorized lawmaking body, Congress. That is clearly against the Constitution.
As an example, the FDA has "deemed" batteries to be tobacco, and that ruling carries the force of law without ever having been authorized by Congress. Batteries are made of metals and chemicals, like nickel, cadmium, cobalt, and lithium. I have never encountered a battery that contains so much as a molecule of tobacco, but legally the FDA "made it so" with the whisk of a pen when logically it is an absurdity.
Striking down Chevron Deference also has massive implications for agencies such as BATFE, which regularly creates new "laws" out of whole cloth simply by making a "ruling" or "determination". Congress clearly defines what constitutes a "firearm" in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and ever since then the BATFE has been creating new "machineguns" and "firearms" out of nothing. For example, a so-called "bump stock" has been classified as a "machinegun" by BATFE despite the fact that it has no bolt, no trigger, no receiver, no barrel, no chamber - in fact nothing at all that will fire a single round of ammunition by itself, much less multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger as the written and passed by Congress law requires.
A bump stock has no trigger to pull at all, much less one that will fire multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger it does not posses. Furthermore, a bump stock REQUIRES a separate pul of the trigger on a firearm to which it is attached for EACH round fired, which is specified in the law as written to NOT be a machinegun.
Now, I give no shits about bump stocks. I've never owned one, and never will. They are wasteful and turn a fine firearm into a useless and inaccurate spray hose. What I DO care about, however, is the law, who makes it, who enforces it, and that there is an eternal separation of powers between those two.
This ruling by the Supreme Court goes a long way to restore that constitutionally mandated separation of powers. I applaud it.
To those who make the spurious claim that "courts do not have the technical expertise to determine legality", they are simply and completely full of shit. The courts are the ONLY ones qualified to interpret what a law says. All judges started their careers as lawyers and worked their way up. A judge has a much more intimate knowledge of law and legal procedures than any other governmental agency, and the ONLY thing that matters in the interpretation of law is law itself. Other "technical matters" DO NOT, NEVER HAVE, and NEVER WILL enter into the equation of whether a law is legal or not.
That's my legal treatise for the day.
.