National Supreme Court Chevron ruling effect on other parts of Government

[T22]

Anyone have a good take on the Chevron ruling and how it will pertain to firearms rules enacted by federal agencies. I'm not smart enough to read between the lines but it seems as if it will limit unilateral agency rule making. Does that sound accurate?

Read More

 

[bradsteen]

It doesn't keep agencies from doing stupid stuff. It ensures when they are sued for doing stupid stuff, the judge does not have to "defer" to the agency's interpretation of what the law means. Instead they must interpret the law as it is written, as they are supposed to.

 

[wired]

It doesn't keep agencies from doing stupid stuff. It ensures when they are sued for doing stupid stuff, the judge does not have to "defer" to the agency's interpretation of what the law means. Instead they must interpret the law as it is written, as they are supposed to.

No it just means the courts are going to have to be the arbiter instead of the agencies when ANY question of law comes up. Got a question that would have been answered by ATF tech branch before? Is it explicitly in the law? If not you will have to sue in federal court . This will make it harder for manufacturers.

 

[Yarome]

It doesn't keep agencies from doing stupid stuff. It ensures when they are sued for doing stupid stuff, the judge does not have to "defer" to the agency's interpretation of what the law means. Instead they must interpret the law as it is written, as they are supposed to.

Agreed, but it also goes a bit further where it curbs agencies from doing stupid stuff in the first place, under a presumed authority, when that authority very clearly no longer exists.

Like in a recent case, the challenge was that the way they went about enacting the rule did not follow APA procedures. It would have been a whole lot easier to defeat it right from the get go if all that had to be shown was that the alphabets new definition was not consistent with the definitions in the existing law. End of story.

It becomes a fools errand to even attempt it, but that doesn't mean they won't still try... or be able to find courts that will ignore the SCOTUS and still allow agencies to run amok.

 

[bradsteen]

Agreed, but it also goes a bit further where it curbs agencies from doing stupid stuff in the first place, under a presumed authority, when that authority very clearly no longer exists.

Like in a recent case, the challenge was that the way they went about enacting the rule did not follow APA procedures. It would have been a whole lot easier to defeat it right from the get go if all that had to be shown was that the alphabets new definition was not consistent with the definitions in the existing law. End of story.

It becomes a fools errand to even attempt it, but that doesn't mean they won't still try... or be able to find courts that will ignore the SCOTUS and still allow agencies to run amok.

I mean, maybe that's the intent, but given how closely Heller and Bruen have been followed by everyone (sarcasm intended), I don't have a lot of faith in administrative agencies falling in line. They've had a taste of power and aren't going to want to give it up. Some will probably give the courts the finger and do their own thing, knowing that by the time the case filters up to SCOTUS the makeup of the court might be different and a more favorable ruling applied. And they'll be aided in this by the activist judges that litter the bench at every level of our legal system.

I hope to be proven wrong on this, but that's what I expect will happen.

Edit to include:
Not trying to diminish the fact that the ruling is a good thing - I'm glad it happened, it's a long-overdue reinforcement of our system of checks and balances. I just don't have a lot of faith that the other branches of government will give up the authority they've enjoyed for the past 40 years without some kind of fight.