Supreme Court Overrides Chevron Decision, Federal Bureaucracies to Be Weakened As a Result

     This morning - the morning of Friday, June 28th, 2024 - the Supreme Court (part of the Judicial Branch) has decided to take back its power to interpret the law, from the federal bureaucracies (which are parts of the executive branch) that unduly wielded that power.

     This morning, it was reported that the Court has overridden the precedent of "Chevron deference". Chevron deference refers to deference to the 1984 decision, in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council (N.R.D.C.); specifically, deference to federal agencies, in regard to interpreting how to enforce laws (or how to "construct" regulations), when the statutes are ambiguous or insufficiently clear. That initial Chevron ruling dealt with the enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the regulation of fisheries.

     Liberals and progressives will not be pleased by this new "decision" (which is actually the sum of two decisions, in the cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce), as the move stands to potentially increase corporate power.

     But in my opinion, this is a win for the separation of powers, and for the system of checks and balances.

     The separation of powers provides that the Judicial Branch interprets the law, the Executive Branch enforces the law, and the Legislative Branch writes the laws.

     Letting the executive branch bureaucracies both enforce and interpret the regulations, is contrary to the separation of powers which was outlined by Montesquieu and the Founders; especially when many of these agencies exist, and were formed, without formal constitutional authority in the first place.

     This decision could be the first step towards the dismantling and abolition of the E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) [and perhaps more agencies, such as the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and/or Health and Human Services].

     And if the E.P.A. is dismantled, then it will not be primarily the fault of the so-called "conservatives" on the Supreme Court.

     The job of the Supreme Court justices is not to enact policy, nor to be "activist judges"; their job is to call balls and strikes; that is, to rule on whether a law is constitutional. This job often entails "remanding" cases back to the states or to lower courts - essentially, accepting the previous decisions of states and lower courts - if and when the Court decides that it is not the highest court's job to make such a decision.

     Pro-life justice Antonin Scalia admitted that, if a pro-abortion / pro-choice policy were to be properly codified into law, then he would have to rule it constitutional and valid, and allow it to stand, even if he didn't like the outcome. On a fundamental level, the Roe v. Wade decision was never constitutional in the first place, because abortion is not mentioned in either the Bill of Rights, nor in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (wherein the powers of Congress are listed), and because abortion was never made into exclusively federal or national subject-matter jurisdiction, through a constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the authority to make abortion policy. Therefore, any and all national-level policies regarding abortion should rightfully have been drafted by Congress, rather than temporarily held up, for fifty-one years, as Supreme Court precedent, waiting around to collapse, after a future Court would eventually and inevitably rule it invalid.

     If the E.P.A. is abolished, then it will be because the Democrats declined to make environmental policy into the exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal government, as opposed to the jurisdiction of the people and the states, which it is (until there's a constitutional amendment saying otherwise), due to the implications of the Tenth Amendment, and due to the fact that environment and ecology appear nowhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

     If federal agencies are dismantled as a result of this ruling - in much the same manner in which the Roe v. Wade decision collapsed - then Democrats will only have themselves to blame; for failing to understand how the law works, and the separation of powers.

You can learn more by reading the following articles:


Articles regarding the recent rulings:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-deference-power-of-federal-agencies/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1Ff5fV8XWGzdmJTOum_QPlb0I8S4BW2VJzoyCjjC_7eEfe6ZNe_LmTyXE_aem_rqgauBp8x_FDOq-bvTWS5A

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supreme-courts-chevron-deference-decision-could-make-science-based/

http://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-court-may-overturn-major-environmental-precedent-this-week/


Interviews with Antonin Scalia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhDSngj8Wbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvttIukZEtM