USSC Grants Review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

[bcr229]

Not a 2A case on the face of it, but it challenges Chevron deference to administrative government agencies (e.g. the BATFE) as the "experts".

Justice Jackson is recused from the case.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

Let's hope SCOTUS gives a win to the people rather than the administrative state. Justice Jackson is supposed to recuse herself from it so there's the possibility of a 4-4 tie vote which would be an effective win for the government.

 

[bcr229]

I could see 6-2 or 5-3 on a narrow ruling.

More info about the case:

Supreme Court will consider major case on power of federal regulatory agencies - SCOTUSblog

Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron.

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Bob A]

IMO the current Court might be inclined to push the burden of writing laws back onto Congress where it belongs, instead of allowing them to write vague laws and foist off the actual job of interpreting them onto unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

 

[Inigoes]

IMO the current Court might be inclined to push the burden of writing laws back onto Congress where it belongs, instead of allowing them to write vague laws and foist off the actual job of interpreting them onto unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

Especially when the regulations fall within criminal law.

 

[RFBfromDE]

IMO the current Court might be inclined to push the burden of writing laws back onto Congress where it belongs, instead of allowing them to write vague laws and foist off the actual job of interpreting them onto unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

^^^ That.

 

[Inigoes]

The left is upset with Jackson recusing herself.

Jackson recused herself because she was part of the circuit court that first heard the case. She did not rule on the case, as she was appointed to the Supreme Court before the ruling and the judge's dissent last year.

Supreme Court Justice to sit out high stakes case

The Court will reconsider its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, with one person on social media calling it a "death blow."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Inigoes]

The left is really freaking out

Opinion: If the Supreme Court kills the Chevron doctrine, corporations will have even more power

If the conservative justices abandon the doctrine just because they have the votes, they will reinforce the message from Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health last year that relying on precedent is out the window.

www.latimes.com

 

[RFBfromDE]

The concept of "bad precedent" escapes them.

Their tiny, narrow minds are child-like.

 

[Tebonski]

Six to two. Sotomayor in dissent.

 

[Bob A]

The left is really freaking out

Opinion: If the Supreme Court kills the Chevron doctrine, corporations will have even more power

If the conservative justices abandon the doctrine just because they have the votes, they will reinforce the message from Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health last year that relying on precedent is out the window.

www.latimes.com

Opening sentence from link: "On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could well advance two long-term conservative causes: the war on government and the parallel war on science."

Odd, that.
I thought that the war was by govt, against the citizens. The War on Science is a Prog construct, stacking the deck via dotGov grantsmanship to exclude dissenting scientists.

Well, the Media knows best, of course. They'll tell me what to believe.

 

[lazarus]

The concept of "bad precedent" escapes them.

Their tiny, narrow minds are child-like.

It just depends. I think it'll end up with a rewriting of Chevron with less deference given to executive branch agencies. But a couple of the justices basically want to undue all regulation and require Congress to write everything. They believe in the non-delegation doctrine, which is non-sense. There is literally no way to govern a modern country of any size with something like non-delegation doctrine. A) Congress are not experts in anything. B) you think the budget bill is bad? Basically most laws would become 1000+ page behemoths to do even the most basic things. Because law isn't remotely implementable as is. I fully agree many regulations are overly burdensome. However, plenty is good and needed and there is no realistic way to write that up as a law.

I doubt they'll go down that path.

 

[RFBfromDE]

A) Congress are not experts in anything.

They should have hearings and make lawmaking more deliberate.

 

[whistlersmother]

It just depends. I think it'll end up with a rewriting of Chevron with less deference given to executive branch agencies. But a couple of the justices basically want to undue all regulation and require Congress to write everything. They believe in the non-delegation doctrine, which is non-sense. There is literally no way to govern a modern country of any size with something like non-delegation doctrine. A) Congress are not experts in anything. B) you think the budget bill is bad? Basically most laws would become 1000+ page behemoths to do even the most basic things. Because law isn't remotely implementable as is. I fully agree many regulations are overly burdensome. However, plenty is good and needed and there is no realistic way to write that up as a law.

I doubt they'll go down that path.

How 'bout a small government concerned with interstate commerce and foreign policy / military? All else is left to the states to figure out.

 

[Allen65]

It just depends. I think it'll end up with a rewriting of Chevron with less deference given to executive branch agencies. But a couple of the justices basically want to undue all regulation and require Congress to write everything. They believe in the non-delegation doctrine, which is non-sense. There is literally no way to govern a modern country of any size with something like non-delegation doctrine. A) Congress are not experts in anything. B) you think the budget bill is bad? Basically most laws would become 1000+ page behemoths to do even the most basic things. Because law isn't remotely implementable as is. I fully agree many regulations are overly burdensome. However, plenty is good and needed and there is no realistic way to write that up as a law.

I doubt they'll go down that path.

The issue of deference is separate from the issue of regulatory construction. IIRC SCOTUS isn't taking on the issue of construction as an issue in this case.
Deference simply should not happen in an American court. Court decisions should be based on the evidence presented to them and the law. Evidence and arguments should be considered equally based on their quality, without any consideration for which party presented it.

 

[Muleskinner]

The left would rather allow unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats write regulations...because it's just another form of control.

 

[RFBfromDE]

The left would rather allow unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats write regulations...because it's just another form of control.

And because they are lazy.

 

[Muleskinner]

And because they are lazy.

Because they feel warm and fuzzy being controlled. It's part of their conditioning..A.K.A brainwashing.

 

[JohnnyE]

It just depends. I think it'll end up with a rewriting of Chevron with less deference given to executive branch agencies. But a couple of the justices basically want to undue all regulation and require Congress to write everything. They believe in the non-delegation doctrine, which is non-sense. There is literally no way to govern a modern country of any size with something like non-delegation doctrine. A) Congress are not experts in anything. B) you think the budget bill is bad? Basically most laws would become 1000+ page behemoths to do even the most basic things. Because law isn't remotely implementable as is. I fully agree many regulations are overly burdensome. However, plenty is good and needed and there is no realistic way to write that up as a law.

I doubt they'll go down that path.

Concur regarding a move to lessen deference. You can't expect Congress to pivot on archania like inspection intervals and procedures for aircraft airframes and so forth. A reigning is, though is needed. Here is an example of ATF run amuk on a firearms reg.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides:
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

Note the list of metals, of which the bullet's core must be entirely comprised. Lead is not on that list. Under this section of the GCA, bullets that contain more than a trace amount of lead (of anything else not on the list) cannot be designated as armor-piercing by AFT. Nevertheless, ATF stated that M855 was AP under the definition, and the only reason it was not banned was because it fell under the sporting ammo exemption.

It doesn't take a PhD to understand that M855 has a significant amount of lead in its core. The 11 grain steel penetrator is only a small percentage of the bullets total 62 grain weight. It falls outside the definition of AP.

While M855 is still available, AFT banned importation of the 53 grain 7N6 round in 2014 for being AP, even though it, too, has a significant amount of lead in its core. Iits steel penetrator weighs in at 22 grains and the balance of the core is lead. It also does not fit the definition of AP under the statute. Despite this, ATF's erroneous interpretation of the statute stands. IDK whether the 7N6 ban has been challenged, but until the Chevron deference is reigned in, the ban would stand even though ATF not only clearly exceeds statutory its authority, it blatantly misread and misapplied the statute.

Don't get me started on AR lowers falling outside of the statutory definition of objects requiring a serial number. Under the statute, they do not. ATF just bent their interpretation to require serial numbers on lower.

 

[lazarus]

The issue of deference is separate from the issue of regulatory construction. IIRC SCOTUS isn't taking on the issue of construction as an issue in this case.
Deference simply should not happen in an American court. Court decisions should be based on the evidence presented to them and the law. Evidence and arguments should be considered equally based on their quality, without any consideration for which party presented it.

I agree on what you are saying. But I’ve read liberal and conservative sources that some of the justices may be considering using it as a vehicle to attack the delegation doctrine.

A few have written at length of how they’d like to do just that.