Source: scotusblog.com 1/16/24
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving the deference that courts should give to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws that they administer. From health care to finance to environmental pollutants, administrative agencies use highly trained experts to interpret and carry out federal laws. Although the case may sound technical, it is one of the most closely watched cases of the court’s current term, which is filled with blockbuster cases involving abortion, gun rights, and whether a former president is eligible to appear on the ballot. The stakes in the case are high: The challengers argue that the current deferential standard is unconstitutional, while the Biden administration contends that overturning the existing doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system.”
The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the Chevron doctrine. It is named after the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, upholding a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Justice John Paul Stevens set out a two-part test for courts to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. The court must first determine whether Congress has directly addressed the question at the center of the case. If it has not, the court must uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.
Here is a link to the NPR radio piece:
Supreme Court to hear arguments in a case that could weaken federal rulemaking : NPR
Could this case affect affect so laws at the federal level. Seems like there are some implications similar to Gundy.
Audio: Supreme Court hears case that could limit federal agencies from enforcing laws
Their decision will not end up helping people on the registry. They will move the power from regulatory entities & the DOJ to the federal judiciary. The result will be deregulation for corporations, employers, & any other business interest so they can maximize profit consequences be damned. Registrants will simply have a federal judge F**king us instead of the DOJ.
Sadly, I would agree that, if thrown back to Congress, SORNA will be passed with little if any debate. Politicians love S.O. Registries even more than their hysterically sexphobic, torch-n-pitchfork constituents. 😩
Did anyone else get to listen to the live herring?? 🐟🐟🐟
(Sea what I did there?? 🤓)
But, in all seriousness, I thought the live arguments were pretty interesting. Scary sharp lawyers on both sides! 😳
Here’s a little additional light reading on the topic from a source that is quoted and referred to here a little bit:
SCOTUS Ponders the Ambiguity of ‘Ambiguous’ and Other Chevron Doctrine Puzzles (Reason, 18 Jan 2024)
Justice Jackson intimates she’s not necessarily willing to overturn the Chevron doctrine.
Anyone awaiting the Chevron Deference ruling might be frustrated. I think the title sums it up:
The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up