(The Guardian) Court overturns historic rule requiring it to consult experts
The supreme court has overturned one of its own most important precedents, the Chevron doctrine, that for the past 40 years has guided the work of federal government in critical areas of public life, from food and drug safety to environmental protection.
The decision throws out the supreme court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, which has required the courts to defer to the expertise of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws.
(The Guardian) Jim Jordan, chair of the House judiciary committee, has issued a statement following the supreme court’s ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine that for the past 40 years has guided the work of federal government in critical areas of public life.
Jordan’s statement reads: Today’s decision fixes the decades-long error of handing vague and broad powers to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. The Supreme Court’s decision restores the Constitutional power to write the law to where it should be—with the elected representatives of the American people.
Chief justice John Roberts, in the ruling to overturn the historic Chevron decision, wrote: Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Roberts wrote that the decision does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron decision.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing in the dissent, said the ruling is “yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary.” Kagan wrote: A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies.
The Biden administration has previously warned that overturning the Chevron doctrine could have a “convulsive” impact on the functioning of government.
Voting as a block, the six rightwing justices who wield the supermajority threw out the supreme court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, which has required the courts to defer to the knowledge of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws.
In recent years, the Chevron doctrine has become a central target of rightwing groups that blame it for what they see as a proliferation of government regulations executed by unelected bureaucrats in the so-called “deep state”.
A key group behind the supreme court challenge, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, was founded with seed money from the oil billionaire Charles Koch.
In a raft of amicus briefs to the court, alliances of scientists, environmentalists and labor organizations warned that undoing Chevron would roll back a regulatory framework that for four decades has improved the health, safety and welfare of Americans. It would also unravel efforts to protect the environment and fight the climate crisis.
The supreme court has overturned one of its own most important precedents, the Chevron doctrine, that for the past 40 years has guided the work of federal government in critical areas of public life, from food and drug safety to environmental protection.
The decision throws out the supreme court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, which has required the courts to defer to the expertise of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws.
(The Guardian) Jim Jordan, chair of the House judiciary committee, has issued a statement following the supreme court’s ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine that for the past 40 years has guided the work of federal government in critical areas of public life.
Jordan’s statement reads: Today’s decision fixes the decades-long error of handing vague and broad powers to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. The Supreme Court’s decision restores the Constitutional power to write the law to where it should be—with the elected representatives of the American people.
Chief justice John Roberts, in the ruling to overturn the historic Chevron decision, wrote: Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Roberts wrote that the decision does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron decision.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing in the dissent, said the ruling is “yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary.” Kagan wrote: A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies.
The Biden administration has previously warned that overturning the Chevron doctrine could have a “convulsive” impact on the functioning of government.
Voting as a block, the six rightwing justices who wield the supermajority threw out the supreme court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, which has required the courts to defer to the knowledge of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws.
In recent years, the Chevron doctrine has become a central target of rightwing groups that blame it for what they see as a proliferation of government regulations executed by unelected bureaucrats in the so-called “deep state”.
A key group behind the supreme court challenge, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, was founded with seed money from the oil billionaire Charles Koch.
In a raft of amicus briefs to the court, alliances of scientists, environmentalists and labor organizations warned that undoing Chevron would roll back a regulatory framework that for four decades has improved the health, safety and welfare of Americans. It would also unravel efforts to protect the environment and fight the climate crisis.
