Maybe, maybe not.

Scotusblog:

Quote:

---

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.

In an article published in 2014, law professor Thomas Merrill suggested that the Chevron decision was not regarded as a particularly consequential one when it was issued. But in the decades since then, it became one of the most significant rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.

At the same time, Chevron has been a target for conservatives, who contend that courts rather than federal agencies should say what the law means. In recent years, some justices have urged their colleagues to revisit the doctrine, and the court itself has not cited Chevron since 2016. But the Supreme Court had repeatedly turned down petitions asking them to reconsider the Chevron doctrine until last year, when it agreed to take up a case brought by a group of family-owned companies that fish for Atlantic herring.

---

Oral Arguments:



Yes, they might, and it is exciting to consider. Thomas opening the questions is…sort of incredible in itself.

The most important challenge for the next president is to tackle the government’s massive and growing debt.

The national debt is $34.06 trillion, which is $258,610 for every household in the nation. Do any presidential candidates offer hope of fiscal sanity?… pic.twitter.com/80YqkJDvXM

— Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) January 17, 2024

This may seem like legalese/geekdom but could have a huge impact on administrative law etc. which is, at least from a conservative standpoint, wholly out of control.

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are likely ready to kill Chevron completely.

The three libs will vote to keep it.

So it will come down to Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barret; none of whom can be trusted to do the right thing in this case.

I don't 'trust' RKB on any cases, but it's an iffy question here (as usual).

Its a horrible extension of power for the executive branch. Burn it down.

It's absurd. Essentially, the tests end up with a result where if Congress hasn't addressed it, the executive can do as they wish, which is precisely the opposite of the Constitution's intent. Not surprising, since Stevens also believed that our rights are granted by the Bill of Rights.

javajaws said:

---

Its a horrible extension of power for the executive branch. Burn it down.

---

Yep. The agencies take any chance they can to stretch their interpretive authority as far as they can, and beyond.

Kavanaugh is a beltway guy - and has never shown any concern about the administrative state. Roberts has shown some concern about the use of Chevron, but he's unlikely ready to blow it all up. ACB is probably aligned with Roberts. I expect we'll see some pull-back on Chevron, but not enough for my tastes.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3289817/1

This case is expected to be ruled against the SEC administrative judges. It's the first of a small step to eliminating the administrative state.

Quote:

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3289817/1

This case is expected to be ruled against the SEC administrative judges. It's the first of a small step to eliminating the administrative state.

---

That's the hope - but again, it would have giant impacts and the Court isn't a big fan of earth shattering changes.

Kavanaugh and Barrett will vote "no, but courts have to give agencies some modicum of deference."

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Kavanaugh and Barrett will vote "no, but courts have to give agencies some modicum of deference."

---

But I have it on good authority that Trump picked the BEST judges ever.

I truly do not mean to turn this into another primary discussion. Just so disappointing that all three squishy moderates are republican nominees, and two came from the most recent R president. Credit also to Reagan appointing Kennedy after giving up on Bork, which resulted in the nomination the utterly worthless activist KBJ.

"Opinions" or "interpretations" should never be done by unelected bureaucrats that we as citizens have zero recourse against.

The founders specifically stated that only Congress has the authority to creat laws, not the president, not judges and sure AF not unelected bureaucrats. It was designed to be difficult to get law through the system, because they knew if it were easy, we'd end up with things like 430 bureaucratic agencies that all interpret law and all whom have the authority to levy fines or prison time based on their interpretation.

The SC needs to throw that responsibility and duty back on Congress. F them if they whine about having to get really detailed when they craft legislation, they should have to.

On the one hand, I'm glad the NRDC lost their case against the EPA in Chevron. On the other hand, it's not the right way to govern a Constitutional republic.

Gorsuch's question/comment that citizens can't know their duties under the law if interpretation is left to agencies that change with each administration will probably make it into a ruling that correctly strikes down Chevron.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Kavanaugh is a beltway guy - and has never shown any concern about the administrative state. Roberts has shown some concern about the use of Chevron, but he's unlikely ready to blow it all up. ACB is probably aligned with Roberts. I expect we'll see some pull-back on Chevron, but not enough for my tastes.

---

That's what it sounded like. They are going to make some very narrow ruling

Kavenaugh's academic and judicial writings should at least give you some reason to believe he'll kill Chevron.

And this could well be another 6-3 with Roberts very grudgingly concurring simply to keep any of Thomas, Gorsuch, or Alito from authoring the majority opinion.

schmellba99 said:

---

"Opinions" or "interpretations" should never be done by unelected bureaucrats that we as citizens have zero recourse against.

The founders specifically stated that only Congress has the authority to creat laws, not the president, not judges and sure AF not unelected bureaucrats. It was designed to be difficult to get law through the system, because they knew if it were easy, we'd end up with things like 430 bureaucratic agencies that all interpret law and all whom have the authority to levy fines or prison time based on their interpretation.

The SC needs to throw that responsibility and duty back on Congress. F them if they whine about having to get really detailed when they craft legislation, they should have to.

---

That's the problem. Prior rulings the Court has basically said that if you don't like how the executive admin is run, elect a new president to change it. But really with 100k federal employees that's damn near impossible to fire everybody and start over. Not saying that's a bad idea, just that it's impossible with the current size of the federal government. I interviewed for a bunch of federal positions out of law school and all said the same thing: it doesn't matter who's in charge at the lower levels because they will do the same thing either way. You also saw fbi agents under the trump administration doing things like helping Biden with Twitter. You know if they were actually working for Trump the agents wouldn't have been pushing Twitter to ban posting the laptop story.

TriAg2010 said:

---

On the one hand, I'm glad the NRDC lost their case against the EPA in Chevron. On the other hand, it's not the right way to govern a Constitutional republic.

Gorsuch's question/comment that citizens can't know their duties under the law if interpretation is left to agencies that change with each administration will probably make it into a ruling that correctly strikes down Chevron.

---

How can any citizen know their duties when the regulations are thousands of pages each? My main job is reading regulations and the amendment to an already complicated reg can be several hundreds pages on a very narrow issue.

aggiejayrod said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

"Opinions" or "interpretations" should never be done by unelected bureaucrats that we as citizens have zero recourse against.

The founders specifically stated that only Congress has the authority to creat laws, not the president, not judges and sure AF not unelected bureaucrats. It was designed to be difficult to get law through the system, because they knew if it were easy, we'd end up with things like 430 bureaucratic agencies that all interpret law and all whom have the authority to levy fines or prison time based on their interpretation.

The SC needs to throw that responsibility and duty back on Congress. F them if they whine about having to get really detailed when they craft legislation, they should have to.

---

That's the problem. Prior rulings the Court has basically said that if you don't like how the executive admin is run, elect a new president to change it. But really with 100k federal employees that's damn near impossible to fire everybody and start over. Not saying that's a bad idea, just that it's impossible with the current size of the federal government. I interviewed for a bunch of federal positions out of law school and all said the same thing: it doesn't matter who's in charge at the lower levels because they will do the same thing either way. You also saw fbi agents under the trump administration doing things like helping Biden with Twitter. You know if they were actually working for Trump the agents wouldn't have been pushing Twitter to ban posting the laptop story.

---

This exemplifies the fact that the federal government is far too large, and it is well beyond the control of the executive or legislative branch.

At some point, you either cut the cancer out, or the cancer will kill you.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Kavenaugh's academic and judicial writings should at least give you some reason to believe he'll kill Chevron.

And this could well be another 6-3 with Roberts very grudgingly concurring simply to keep any of Thomas, Gorsuch, or Alito from authoring the majority opinion.

---

This would be my bet too.

Please note, I almost never guess SCOTUS correctly.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3289817/1

This case is expected to be ruled against the SEC administrative judges. It's the first of a small step to eliminating the administrative state.

---

That's the hope - but again, it would have giant impacts and the Court isn't a big fan of earth shattering changes.

---

I would say abortion was pretty earth shattering.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron/index.html

Coinciding hit piece

schmellba99 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

"Opinions" or "interpretations" should never be done by unelected bureaucrats that we as citizens have zero recourse against.

The founders specifically stated that only Congress has the authority to creat laws, not the president, not judges and sure AF not unelected bureaucrats. It was designed to be difficult to get law through the system, because they knew if it were easy, we'd end up with things like 430 bureaucratic agencies that all interpret law and all whom have the authority to levy fines or prison time based on their interpretation.

The SC needs to throw that responsibility and duty back on Congress. F them if they whine about having to get really detailed when they craft legislation, they should have to.

---

That's the problem. Prior rulings the Court has basically said that if you don't like how the executive admin is run, elect a new president to change it. But really with 100k federal employees that's damn near impossible to fire everybody and start over. Not saying that's a bad idea, just that it's impossible with the current size of the federal government. I interviewed for a bunch of federal positions out of law school and all said the same thing: it doesn't matter who's in charge at the lower levels because they will do the same thing either way. You also saw fbi agents under the trump administration doing things like helping Biden with Twitter. You know if they were actually working for Trump the agents wouldn't have been pushing Twitter to ban posting the laptop story.

---

This exemplifies the fact that the federal government is far too large, and it is well beyond the control of the executive or legislative branch.

At some point, you either cut the cancer out, or the cancer will kill you.

---

So much this.

Overturning Chevron would be a fantastic step in getting America back on track.

I think Daily Wire vs OSHA was a key stepping stone when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that OSHA could not mandate vaccines for businesses with more than 100 employees and that should be an act of Congress.

Roberts, Barrett, Kav wrote the opinion, Gorsuch concurred and was joined by Alito and Thomas.

Kegan, Soto, Breyer dissented.

Quote:

---

I would say abortion was pretty earth shattering.

---

Yes, but it was incremental. People seem to forget how much Casey limited Roe. By the time of Dobbs, Roe was pretty much understood to be a terrible opinion.

To eliminate Chevron deference entirely would turn administrative law on its head and require congress to tighten up myriad statutes before administrative enforcement could continue. Many here (me included) would love to see that happen, but many more think a government run by unelected bureaucrats is just wonderful.

I just don't see Chevron being tossed in its entirety - it would create too much uncertainty.

aggiejayrod said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

On the one hand, I'm glad the NRDC lost their case against the EPA in Chevron. On the other hand, it's not the right way to govern a Constitutional republic.

Gorsuch's question/comment that citizens can't know their duties under the law if interpretation is left to agencies that change with each administration will probably make it into a ruling that correctly strikes down Chevron.

---

How can any citizen know their duties when the regulations are thousands of pages each? My main job is reading regulations and the amendment to an already complicated reg can be several hundreds pages on a very narrow issue.

---

My job has to deal with the FARs (not me, but our research center) and I've had to get about pinky toe deep in them. It's mind boggling how bad they are.

Editorial;

Quote:

---

When things go pear-shaped for progressive causes, like fiat rule by unelected bureaucrats, my go-to source is the Jack-Russell-on-meth who covers the Supreme Court for Slate...if Slate can be said to cover anything...and that would be Mark Joseph Stern. This is from The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents.

Quote:

---

And yet, throughout Wednesday's arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision's democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. "The reality of how this works," Kavanaugh said, "is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes inwhether it's communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post." New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, "because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration."
...
The remaining conservative justices were less dogmatic but made little effort to conceal their distaste for Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett played it straight at first, asking real questions that hinted at an understanding of the mess that'll flow from Chevron's demise. But by the end of arguments, both were hounding Prelogar with telltale complaints about the ostensibly arbitrary and power-drunk executive branch crushing the rule of law. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have gone on the record against Chevron, were only a bit subtler than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The writing's on the wall of the marble palace, despite the liberals' fierce fight.

Here's the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it'll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron's absence. That's why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a "tremendous disruption" for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

---

---

I could live with all that.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-briefing-albertmohler-com/id390278738?i=1000642077042

Great podcast I was listening to today about this

Very thoughtful, from a christian/conservative viewpoint. Thx.

Sounds like the tea leaf readers think it will likely fall, or at least be revised significantly.

Bye bye, Chevron Deference.

Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power https://t.co/uEoJRV0qEo

— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) January 17, 2024

The right people like the scum Democrats on senate judiciary are pissed, because ethics, or something;

Mow your own grass before you worry about your neighbor’s lawn. pic.twitter.com/sG3muDEp0x

— Ex Umbris Designs 🇺🇸🤘🏻 (@ExUmbrisDesigns) January 18, 2024

Was this a nothing burger?

jac4 said:

---

Was this a nothing burger?

---

Not sure if serous.


This case was a massive hit to the power of beltway bureaucracy!

I am serious.

I expected it would be a huge paradigm shift, but I don't really detect any changes associated with it

Just from today.

Big Big news out of EPA if you are not following along.

EPA is withdrawing its "Endangerment Finding" on the issue of "Greenhouse Gases" on the basis that under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright, the Finding and subsequent regulations on auto emissions, EV mandates,…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 29, 2025

It's about to the kick the crap out of the EPA's and scotus declaration that C02 is a pollutant.

This decision will have a long lasting impact on giving the administrative state too much interpretive power.

WestAustinAg said:

---

It's about to the kick the crap out of the EPA's and scotus declaration that C02 is a pollutant.

This decision will have a long lasting impact on giving the administrative state too much interpretive power.

---

And hopefully that will be one of the first dominos to fall that will stop the carbon capture nonsense that is being pushed onto big oil.

jac4 said:

---

I am serious.

I expected it would be a huge paradigm shift, but I don't really detect any changes associated with it

---

It is a paradigm shift, but not an overnight reversal of a bunch of regulatory/administrative decisions or even previously decided case law. It changed the way courts look at things going forward, but it doesn't change cases already decided or regulations already promulgated (until they are challenged). You shouldn't expect to see a massive change overnight, but now plenty of things can't be done through regulation (Congress has to actually make the law) and the administrative agencies get much less power to create "rules" that they say are interpreting laws.