Quote:Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies
By Amy Howe
on Jun 28, 2024 at 12:37 pm
[/url]
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmail
[url=https://www.scotusblog.com/#printfriendly]PrintFriendlyShare
The court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce on Friday. (Thomas Hawk via Flickr)
This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”
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.”
When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.
Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time, the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means. The justices had rebuffed earlier requests (including by one of the same lawyers who argued one of the cases here) to consider overruling Chevron before they agreed last year to take up a pair of challenges to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.
The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.
After two federal courts of appeals rebuffed challenges to the rules, two sets of commercial fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.
The justices took up their appeals, agreeing to address only the Chevron question in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Relentless case but was recused from the Loper-Bright case, presumably because she had heard oral argument in the case while she was still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.)
Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”
Moreover, Roberts observed, even if courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, it can consider that interpretation when it falls within the agency’s purview, a doctrine known as Skidmore deference.
Stare decisis – the principle that courts should generally adhere to their past cases – does not provide a reason to uphold the Chevron doctrine, Roberts continued. Roberts characterized the doctrine as “unworkable,” one of the criteria for overruling prior precedent, because it is so difficult to determine whether a statute is indeed ambiguous.
And because of the Supreme Court’s “constant tinkering with” the doctrine, along with its failure to rely on the doctrine in eight years, there is no reason for anyone to rely on Chevron. To the contrary, Roberts suggested, the Chevron doctrine “allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.”
Roberts indicated that the court’s decision on Friday would not require earlier cases that relied on Chevron to be overturned. “Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a ‘special justification’ for overruling” a decision upholding agency action, “because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided” – which is not enough, standing along, to overrule the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Monday on when the statute of limitations to challenge agency action begins to run. The federal government has argued in that case, Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, that if the challenger prevails, it would open the door for a wide range of “belated challenges to agency regulation.”
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that the Chevron doctrine was inconsistent not only with the Administrative Procedure Act but also with the Constitution’s division of power among the three branches of government. The Chevron doctrine, he argued, requires judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a longer (33-page) concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.” He sought to downplay the impact of Friday’s ruling, contending that “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.”
Kagan, who read a summary of her dissent from the bench, was sharply critical of the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. Congress often enacts regulatory laws that contain ambiguities and gaps, she observed, which agencies must then interpet. The question, as she framed it, is “[w]ho decides which of the possible readings” of those laws should prevail?
For 40 years, she stressed, the answer to that question has generally been “the agency’s,” with good reason: Agencies are more likely to have the technical and scientific expertise to make such decisions. She emphasized the deep roots that Chevron has had in the U.S. legal system for decades. “It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.”
By overruling the Chevron doctrine, Kagan concluded, the court has created a “jolt to the legal system.”
Kagan also pushed back against the majority’s suggestion that overruling the Chevron doctrine would introduce clarity into judicial review of agency interpretations. Noting the majority’s assurances that agency interpretations may be entitled to “respect” going forward, she observed that “f the majority thinks that the same judges who argue today about where ‘ambiguity’ resides are not going to argue tomorrow about what ‘respect’ requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed.”
Similarly, she questioned the majority’s assertion that Friday’s decision would not call into question decisions that relied on the [i]Chevron doctrine to uphold agency action. “Courts motivated to overrule an old Chevron-based decision can always come up with something to label a ‘special justification,’” she posited. “All a court need do is look to today’s opinion to see how it is done.”
But more broadly, Kagan rebuked her colleagues in the majority for what she characterized as a judicial power grab. She lamented that, by overruling Chevron, the court had, in “one fell swoop,” given “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, applauded the decision. “By ending Chevron deference,” he said in a statement, “the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,”
But Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, decried the ruling in a statement. “[T]he Supreme Court today says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute. That is a recipe for chaos, as hundreds of federal judges — who lack the expertise of agency personnel — are certain to reach inconsistent results on the meaning of federal laws as applied to complex, technical issues.”
Friday’s ruling came in one of three cases during the 2023-24 term seeking to curtail the power of federal agencies – a conservative effort sometimes dubbed the “war on the administrative state.” In October, the court heard arguments in a challenge to the constitutionality of the mechanism used to fund the consumer watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last month the court upheld the CFPB’s funding by a 7-2 vote. And on Thursday, the justices pared back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other administrative agencies, holding that the SEC cannot continue to use in-house proceedings to impose fines in securities fraud cases.  
The fishermen in both cases were represented at no cost by conservative legal groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, linked to funding from billionaire and longtime anti-regulation advocate Charles Koch.  
[/i]https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna155902

Quote:By Lawrence Hurley and Ryan J. Reilly
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress' certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, not the much broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered.
The provision targets anyone who "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," but the court determined that its scope is limited by a preceding sentence in the statute referring to altering or destroying records.

The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that he was disappointed by the decision because of the impact it would have on the Justice Department's Jan. 6 cases, although he stressed it would not affect the bulk of them.
The ruling "limits an important federal statute that the department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," he added.
But the decision was celebrated by Trump, who said the Supreme Court "did the right thing" in Fischer's case.
"They've been waiting for this decision for a long time. They've been waiting for a long time, and that was a great answer. That was a great thing for people who have been so horribly treated," Trump told supporters Friday at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia.
On Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors said, Fischer joined the crowd breaching the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” he yelled again and again before he pushed forward toward a police line while yelling, “Motherf-----s!” the government says.
He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, video disclosed as evidence in other Jan. 6 trials shows, he tried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them that he was an officer, too.

Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania. (Another man named Joseph Fisher, who was also a police officer, was recently sentenced to 20 months in prison for his own role on Jan. 6.)
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government's view of the law's reach "defies the most plausible understanding" of the statute in question, 18 U.S. Code 1512. The provision carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The Justice Department's interpretation would "criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison," he added.
To prove a violation, prosecutors now have to show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," Roberts wrote.

An Email from an American friend who lives in Florida:

Quote:Some fascinating facts that lots of anti-Trumpers don't get.

Originally at the beginning of this cycle I was all in for Ron DeSantis because I live in Florida and personally experienced the impact of DeSantis policies making this state probably the freest state in the union and from what was possible a purplish swing state into a solid red state. Over 1 million increase in republican voter registration since the 2022 mid-term election.

So DeSantis drops out leaving only the scummy neo-con Nikki Haley and Trump.  Trump could have folded his tent and retired to one of his fabulous golf courses. But he didn't quit even against the stiffest odds possible and knowing the commie democrats were coming at him with the full intent to destroy him criminally, financially and emotionally. Trump stood in the breech as they indicted him criminally, sued him civilly and attacked him personally in the most vile way possible all at the prompting of Biden and his weaponized Dept of Justice.

I don't believe there are a handful of men in history with the strength and fortitude who would gladly take on those odds but Trump did. Don't gotta like him but in all respects we should respect him.  And stupid, demented, pedophille Joe Biden actually thought he was going to debase Trump on the debate stage last night.

Trump's got a lot of worts, no doubt but I never knew a fighter that didn't. To watch that ugly husk of a subhuman slither off the stage last night with his piece of shit wife was glorious. And further to watch the total freakout on all of the main stream media is as satisfying as any one should be able to enjoy. In 3 and a half short years the democrat party has completely destroyed themselves by incompetence, hubris and their hatred for Trump.

Democrats struggle now with what to do, how to proceed and how they salvage themselves. But unless they can convince Biden to drop out and release his delegates they are FUCKED. It's far to late in the game and they know it. All the democrat down ballot candidates also know they are now screwed because of Pedo Joe.  But democrats are not done. I expect the next 4 months to be nothing but volatility and chaos. Violence, riots, false flag events and assassinations are on the commie democrat docket. Scary times ahead. 

I'm sure it will. Cold War 2.0.

Quote:The Russian and Chinese position is buttressed by the principle that peace is the result of compromise between the major centers of power, and that without their mutual agreement – without equality, mutual respect, a willingness to recognize each other’s interests, and adherence to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs – a stable order is impossible. The US believes, however, that peace is a deterministic given, and that no special effort is needed to maintain it. This leads to paradoxical solutions: the more weapons, the more peace. The West is not yet ready to become just one of the Atlanteans holding up the sky. It still believes it should be in charge.

Are changes in relations between Moscow and Washington possible with a change of administration in the United States? I expect that this will not have a significant impact on the American line towards Russia. It is useful to look at American politics as an independent factor in our planning – we need to assume we cannot rely on the US elites. Washington will in most cases act with hostility towards Russia, in some cases opportunistically, engaging Moscow at time when it suits its own interests.

There is still a paradigm gap between Russians and Americans in their understanding of the world in the 21st century. US experts believe that Russia is part of the West and will inevitably end up in the Western camp at the end of this crisis, with China as its opponent. This set of paradoxical ideas has been present in the American narrative since the early 1990s.

The Americans believe that ultimately Russia has no alternative, and will therefore accept any offer from Washington. With the dollar sure to remain as the dominant currency for the medium term, the US will be an important country. And much depends on its turbulent domestic political life.

When it comes to Ukraine, the Americans think in investment banking terms and say straight out that Ukraine is a fairly cheap instrument that serves two purposes: to weaken Russia and to stifle any voices in Europe calling for strategic autonomy from the US.

Over the past two years, Washington has found this method of mobilisation quite cheap. Indeed, Russia-EU relations have been disrupted, the main gas pipeline linking the Russian and Western European energy systems has been destroyed, Eastern Europe has been militarised, the US military-industrial complex has been strengthened, and economic activity has flowed from Europe to the US. The American economy has gained from this crisis, while the Western European economy has suffered badly.

What are the US objectives in the Ukraine crisis? It wants a weakened Russia, which has lost control of key advantages in the Eurasian space, such as in transport, economics, production and energy. The US wants to knock Russia out of the top five world powers and make it strategically secondary.

However, the US is beginning to realize that Ukraine as an instrument of deterrence against Moscow is no longer a cheap resource. Kiev’s own military, material and human resources are close to exhaustion, and maintaining the viability of the Ukrainian state is becoming increasingly expensive for the US and the EU.

The US has been looking at Russia as a declining strategic player for some time. They were waiting for the moment when the country would leave the top-five leading countries in order to deal with China. Why did the US abandon negotiations with Moscow at the end of 2021, push Ukraine towards a military solution to the crisis, and then forbid it to negotiate with Russia? They believed that a quick victory over Russia was achievable, that the 52 countries the US had gathered in a coalition around Ukraine – their economies, resources, military arsenals, intelligence, satellite constellations, arms supplies, political intelligence and other support – would be enough to defeat our country. The West had not properly assessed Russia’s potential and that of their own coalition, and the short-term goals they set themselves have proved unattainable. They believe that a country whose economy apparently accounts for 3% of the world’s nominal GDP cannot fight the entire grand coalition on its own. But when Western countries have 65-80% of their GDP in the service sector, rather than in heavy industry and weapons-related areas, a situation arises in which Russia alone produces more artillery shells than all the Western states. This is a paradox that the US has not taken into account.

The US-Russian standoff should be seen as a long-term confrontation. It will continue even after Washington realizes that Ukraine has lost its importance as a tool. As a result, the US will shift the center of anti-Russian activity to another country that, like Ukraine, is willing to sacrifice itself and be at the forefront of the fight against Moscow. The US will not cease to be a strategic rival, and therefore we cannot afford to ignore it in our planning. We must regard the Americans as a constant threat, and prepare for a long confrontation.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

"Mash-up" of funny, amusing, weird, obscure, satire music Vids without going too raw. Hopefully, nobody will be offended. Hopefully, Ninurta will let my Mash-up  choices slide.


Hard A$$ Boomers Country Club Beat Down (19$8)




Mashup exhibit A:

"I always feel like somebody's watching me" // "My eyes are blind but I can see"!
Blackwell - "Somebody's Snowblind"



Rockwell feat. Michael Jackson - Somebody's Watching Me
Black Sabbath - Snowblind
Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Movie clips are from Goodfellas and Scarface


Get your motors runnin’...



Let the good times roll!

Skip to the 5:00 minute mark to miss the Ad. This video by the Why Files really has many things of interest for those of us who have been around for a while .

The section on Agent Orange bothered me as much as anything as I have had friends and people I served with end up dead in their 40s from Agent Orange..... Many with their Nails turning to mush and their organs shutting down at such a young age is a fairly strong indicator IMO there is a common cause... Government was smart as they waited 30 years before they offered assistance to those affected. They are doing the same thing now with those who were harmed by the forced vaccinations the military mandated. ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Anyway here is the video

I'm not a big fan of Tucker Carlson’s opinions, but I enjoyed this smack down.
This is a masterclass in how to deal with a dishonest reporter.


https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1806066849827676456

What's incredible, yet we see it, hear it so much is that you can also draw a picture of the reporter based on the incredible arrogance and smugness in her voice. The mask of "journalism" often immediately comes off and becomes an "entitled activist" in mere seconds.

Tucker meets the Australian media - full vid on his TCN website

Some of you might remember how the troops of the Vietnam war fought for years saying their lives were destroyed by agent orange. After many died with no disability or medical from the military years went by and finally the military figured out Agent Orange really could turn you nails to mush and kill your liver just for starters .

Now fast forward to today with a horrible story out of the military of how one girl is fought and dumped after a sever medical condition from the Madera forced vaccine... The older I get and the more I see and hear the less I trust institutions..especially if they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

https://rumble.com/v53gb4m-us-national-g...debil.html

Explanation: My favorite superhero is Spiderman and here is why ...



And ...



Both scenes bring me to tears and make me question myself deeply ...

But this thread isnt about 'fake' Spiderman ... its about 'real' Spiderman ...

And so I offer up these real world superhero Spidermen ...

Riquelme Maciel





Riquelme with the girl he saved and her mother. (Notice the house in the background.)

Quote:Riquelme Maciel, a 5-year-old boy, was playing in his backyard with his friend, when suddenly he saw smoke coming out of a house nearby. He was wearing a Spiderman costume. When he went to tell his friend's mother, she was too afraid to go into the house filled with fire. So Riquelme decided to go in the house himself. This was quoted by the mother: "He said, 'don't cry, don't scream because I'm going to save Andrielle.' Then I began shouting for him not to go because I was scared he would die along with her in the fire." He saved the baby girl and himself from the fire.


Riquelme Maciel plans to become a fire fighter so that he can save more lives.

Quote:A hero dubbed “Spiderman” after scaling a Paris apartment block to rescue a child dangling from a fourth-floor balcony has started work with the city’s fire brigade.

Mamoudou Gassama made headlines around the world by clambering up the front of the building to pull to the helpless four-year-old to safety.

The Malian migrant’s extraordinary feat earned him French citizenship.

Quote:A Thai fireman dressed as Spider-Man used the superhero costume in order to coax the boy down from a third-floor ledge at a special needs school in the nation’s capital, police told AFP.

The boy, who was afraid of attending his first day at school, perched himself on the three-story balcony and refused to come back inside despite pleas made by his teacher and mother.
Overhearing the boy’s mother mention her son’s love of superheroes, firefighter Somchai Yoosabai took matters into his own hands, rushing back to the fire station and changed into the Spider-Man costume quicker than Peter Parker.
When he returned, the boy quickly went into the arms of Spidey.
Yoosabai told local television reporters, “I told him ‘Spider-Man is here to rescue you, no monsters are going to attack you,’ and I told him to walk slowly toward me as running could be dangerous.
Yoosabai keeps both the Spider-Man costume and a costume of Japanese superhero Ultraman at the nearby station in an attempt to make fire drills livelier.

This ripped my heart out and stomped on it