Supreme Court Hears Challenge To The Chevron Doctrine- Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com

[@andyubel3995]

Clement is the GOAT as an appellate lawyer. He has clearly thought through these issues at a very deep level.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

t. Republican

[@ditherdather]

Couldn't agree more. He came about as close as one could come to absolutely ripping beaurocrat ass without saying names and party affiliations. He was right, though. Congress won't pass or revise some of these older laws becuase it takes away gov't agency's ability to rule with absolution. They get to create the rules, AND define the rules according to whatever is most convenient at the time. Ambiguity is their friend. Without it, they're more constrained.

[@ditherdather]

Fun fact: He and Amy C Barrett both clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. What are the odds of that? Very cool.

[@AMERICANPATRIOT1945]

This case involves not only Chevron Doctrine, but the nefarious nature of the bureaucracy to use private entities as part of their enforcement methods. Specifically, fishermen are often required to purchase their fishing permits from a private entity that buys the permits in bulk with no intent to actually use any of them to go fishing. Instead, the private entity sits on the permits and scalps them to actual fishermen. That never has existential rights anywhere at any level. A government permit required by law to do something must be issued by the relevant agency directly to the recipient for the sole purpose of doing what the permit is issued for. No government permit should ever be sold by government to one private entity so it can be rented, leased, or sold at a profit. Also at the heart of this case is the right of a private business group to take part in enforcement of law and/or regulation. That is not part of this Chevron Deference case, but both of these legal entities should be overruled as completely unconstitutional.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

t. Republican

[@anthonygonzalez9422]

If you want to sound off as putting forth a credible legal argument, maybe save the personal characterizations like ‘nefarious nature’ for the FedSoc editorials. Yes, we all know the major questions doctrine’s real purpose is to deregulate/dismantle the administrative state. No need to bury the lead. I don’t disagree with some of your other points but your post reeks of cynicism. Something makes me doubt that you’d be singing the same tune if this were a private company contracted with, say DHS to enforce anti-immigration measures at the border, or a private security firm contracted with DoD to act as a lawless death squad in a foreign country. But I’m sure you’re highly principled and repel at the thought.

[@AMERICANPATRIOT1945]

@@anthonygonzalez9422 , Thank you for your intelligent and thought provoking reply to my above comment concerning the SCOTUS case Loper Bright Enterprises vs Raimondo. First please allow me to lay your fears to rest concerning private involvement in government actions. I totally agree with you concerning the hiring of private contractors at the border or the hiring of private security firms. In fact, I disagree vehemently with the government's use of any armed private enterprise to enforce laws or to make policy, domestic or foreign. This includes but is not limited to any private surveillance, use of force, monitoring, or any other empowerment of private entities over We The People. As far as I am concerned, no private entity is ever entitled to possess or wield power over We The People or any individual citizen. We have a government, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement. Bureaucrats are hired employees to carry out orders from our elected officials. No bureaucrat ever has the right to make themselves or their agency into its own monarchy complete with its own administrative enforcement and punishment. We have independent courts for that purpose. And yes, I do believe in the right to a full jury trial for any offense, right down to traffic tickets. This would prevent a lot of the policing for profit we see in corrupt local, state, and even federal agencies and police departments. So, as far as I am concerned, private entities are never entitled to receive or take any of our personal information by any means without our permission. That precludes private use of force or coercion of any kind, including EULAs, statements about opening a package or software, or using a device or service being an automatic acceptance of tracking, monitoring, adverse terms and conditions, or surveillance of any kind. I completely disagree with private traffic camera enforcement, private license plate readers of any kind on public roads, and the same being used in private parking lots linked to big data of any kind. Some law enforcement linkage is OK to prevent and solve kidnappings, etcetera, but not the general private intrusion into our lives that big corporate has forced us to accept as normal. So called credit bureaus, which are no more than private companies with the gall to force themselves upon us as a corporate government, should be outlawed. Their unearned power is for government only, never private usurpers. The same goes for the so called Medical Information Bureau or MIB. All blacklisting, typing, and categorizing by private entities should be outlawed or at least given full exposure without limits or protections to libel, slander, and defamation lawsuits with relaxed standards of proof for plaintiffs, to equalize the difference in legal power between normal private citizens and big corporate. Corporate and private totalitarianism is just as evil as the government variety and it is time to end both. I have a very large bone to pick with private security companies and private military companies. As far as I am concerned, no private entity ever has the right to keep and bear any arm that any other ordinary private citizen is not allowed to keep and bear, save for actual military hardware manufacturers for the purpose of supplying our national armed forces with their equipment and weapons. This does not mean a private citizen with special permits, it means an ordinary private citizen living in the most gun restrictive state and having no special exceptions has the same right to keep and bear anything that any PMC or security firm or their individual executives or employees have the right to keep and bear. I would also extend that restriction to ordinary police during the course of ordinary duties. Essentially, if the most restricted ordinary citizen in good standing is not allowed by their locality to keep and bear it, then no private goon squad does, either. If applied properly, this type of policy would force greater respect for the 2A across the board for ordinary citizens, enable severe punishments for criminals in possession of any weapon, and prevent the formation, contracting, and deployment of private goon squads. Private enforcement didn't work with the Pinkertons in the middle to late 1800s, and it is just as evil today. Our use of so called 'bounty hunters' is a joke, and a bad one at that. Private detectives do have their place, but no special exception should ever be allowed for them to violate stalking laws, have access to personal information without written permission from the individual that information describes, or in any other way engage in surveillance of private citizens without their full knowledge, disclosure, and permission of all affected by the surveillance. The use of private detectives by the wealthy and politically connected to harass and humiliate those they are at odds with has got to stop. Any private entity or detective who gets access to personal information they are not allowed to access should be punished with many years in prison for the offense. If the entity is big corporate, then the executive board should be held liable with full prison terms for each member, including the CEO on down. We all have our human rights, and there is no exception made in the US Constitution for violations of those rights by private entities. The exceptions made by the courts for private violators are a bad joke at best. Such court decisions must be overturned so that private snoops, goons, HR departments, and others can be held to the same standards or even tighter than law enforcement. No one deserves to be violated without the benefit of a full jury trial. Anthonygonzalez9422, as you can see, I have no love for any exercise of private power or tyranny. It is just as bad as government tyranny and both should be stopped. I hope this allays your fears that I have a double standard at the border or for PMCs and security companies versus fishing regulation enforcement. I just don't see any purpose other than the service of tyranny for allowing private and bureaucratic violations, limitations, and restrictions of our rights.

[@kalijasin]

Cheveron doctrine is highly flawed.

[@AwkwardTruths]

If a law is ambiguous, then it should be ignored and sent back to the 'lawmakers' for clarification. To leave an ambiguous law up to interpretation of an agency is a 'bone head' move.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

t. Republican I bet you believe in natural rights too.

[@sandiscales1963]

This lady speaking is ambiguous.

[@anthonygonzalez9422]

Ambiguity is one byproduct of a legislative process acknowledged by the founders. For all their human faults, when writing article 1 they were not so insane as to think that legislators could could actually see the future and expected them to enumerate with specificity every single problem that could possibly arise.

[@AwkwardTruths]

@@anthonygonzalez9422 Huge difference in a founding father not being able to 'know the future' and a poorly written law. You're right about the first. I'm referring to the latter.

[@kalijasin]

@@AwkwardTruths a lot of times when they write a law very poorly its on purpose e.g. an attempt to undermine a right

[@johnr4660]

This absolutely needs to be overturned. The executive branch was never meant to create rules that carry the penalty of law. That's reserved for the legislative. As we can all now clearly see, oversight is abundantly lacking in the legislative branch!

[@gaiustacitus4242]

I agree with your assessment, for Article I, Section 1 could not be any clearer that "all legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Nowhere is the Constitution can there be found the power to delegate this power as several Justices have found over the years. Furthermore, the requirement for fishing companies to pay the cost of federal employees ("the monitors") is a tax. The Constitution clearly states at Article I, Section 8 that only "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes." This power of Congress is restated in the 16th Amendment. The IRS and any other tax collecting entity should be an agency of the Legislative Branch and report directly to Congress. We have a federal government that fails to abide by the Constitution. Given the wanton disregard of the Union's charter by all three branches of government, there is no other recourse for the free, independent, and sovereign States (nations) which formed this Union to withdraw therefrom and to resume their full sovereign powers. If the People of any State take exception with compliance of the State government with the respective charter of government, then they can address this by reforming (dissolving and forming anew) their State government or by regions of the State seceding to form a new State.

[@kalijasin]

Agreed!

[@Capt-Intrepid]

The Supreme Court considers a major challenge to the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Here's the issue in a nutshell: At stake: The case centers on the Chevron doctrine, a legal principle established in 1984 that instructs courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws as long as those interpretations are reasonable. This case could significantly limit the doctrine's scope. The challenge: Loper Bright Enterprises, a group of fishing companies, is asking the Court to overrule or weaken the Chevron doctrine. They argue that the doctrine gives unelected bureaucrats too much power, allowing them to effectively rewrite laws through their interpretations. The case specifics: The dispute stems from a $710 fee imposed on fishing vessels by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Loper Bright argues the agency lacks statutory authority to impose such a fee, but NMFS claims the Chevron doctrine allows its interpretation of the law to stand. Potential impact: A ruling against the Chevron doctrine could have broad implications for various areas where agencies apply ambiguous laws, including the environment, healthcare, and the economy. It could significantly shift power from agencies to the courts in interpreting laws. Current stage: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 17, 2024. A decision is expected in the summer of 2024. This case is being closely watched for its potential to reshape the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts.

[@jollyrogerq]

Ultimately the case needs to come down to one simple fact that federal agencies are not the legislative branch of the government and have no privilege to make laws per the Constitution of the United States the only impact of importance are the impacts on the the rights of the citizens given to us by the Constitution . If Congress hasn't made a law in regards to an issue then per the Supreme Court that decision must benefit the people and not the government

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

Too bad the majority of Americans who get their news from corporate outlets like CNN and FOX will never see or understand how important this case is. It's yet another example of rich elites trying to gut regulations so they can make billions more at our expense. They managed to convince a bunch of dumb dumbs that pesky regulations are holding back massive progress. Yea, I'm sure some regulations are, but that's not what they are aiming to gut. These elites want to do whatever they want with little to no consequences. Can't have regulations get in the way of that. Plain and simple. Expect your life to be worse off if this corrupt supreme court changes the rules yet again.

[@ringtail99]

@@jollyrogerq so your saying f the ecosystem only the corporations get to make the rules is that what you want

[@mightymindy7142]

Yes, get rid of these agencies, they do more harm than good! @@ringtail99

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

I thought conservative judges were always screaming about "legislating from the bench" and strongly opposed to it.

[@jollyrogerq]

When agencies have overstepped their roles and made people criminals because of changes in their regulations they are now in acting laws as if they are Congress and that is not acceptable just because an agency has experienced doesn't mean they have the best interests of the people

[@rolandthethompsongunner64]

Also doesn’t mean they don’t have their best interest in mind 😂

[@shihtzusrule9115]

enacting

[@ev618]

According to our U.S. Constitution, The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes the laws; The Executive Branch (President) executes the laws; & The Juditial Branch of government (Judges) interpret the laws These three letter agencies should not be enacting laws, that is Congresses job. These federal bureaucrats have taken power that according to our constitution does not belong to them!

[@videoman4734]

They have their own interests only not the people's interests.

[@gaiustacitus4242]

The proper role of bringing "the expert agency" to bear on any particular societal problem is for agency experts TO ADVISE CONGRESS. No unelected officials of any government agency should be directly involved in enacting legislation, and no regulations created by such an agency should ever be enforced or deemed enforceable by any federal court.

[@charleskhenry]

This guy is fire @14:17 and again @22:10

[@tnnsboy18]

thanks for the timestamps, you're very cute btw ;D

[@jollyrogerq]

Did she just throw the ATF under bus at 56:00 ? As far as I understand what she said she just said the feds cant use chevron in constitutional issues

[@horustwohawks]

Thank you for posting the reference and your comment.

[@fortusvictus8297]

She claimed that chevron could be used, but not as a first line. Courts shouldn't consider Chevron as to whether to give a case merit, but should honor Chevron at step 2 and throw the case out unless it could be explicitly shown it is a constitutional issue. Goes back to that word 'ambiguity' over and over again.

[@timothycarson114]

Just like the government has mo power to delegate authority to osha to mandate that companies have to force vaccines on employees

[@-__Shadow__-]

Please shut down these unconstitutional "lawmakers".

[@OTRTrader]

Hearing Justice Thomas chuckle over Justice Sotomayor's second question at the beginning of the argument gives me an idea of how he feels about the notion of technology overtaking the Constitution in certain aspects of law, and how he knows of the other arm of the court's idea of how new technology is their convenient excuse for trying to keep interest balancing alive, or on life support if possible.

[@chrissmith7686]

When I hear oral arguments in so many cases, justice sotamayor always seems to be arguing the case for her preferred side rather than questioning the attorney presenting the opposing side. When will she realize that she is the judge and not the advocate?

[@anthonygonzalez9422]

@@chrissmith7686 same can be said about the written opinions of the conservative majority. Finding a ‘major question’ in mask mandate/COVID-19 cases, but not for contraception or Muslim travel bans.

[@chrissmith7686]

@@anthonygonzalez9422 I should hope so - written opinions are supposed to be stating an opinion - how they think the case should be decided and why the concluded that. Oral arguments are for the justices to question the advocates, not bolster one side or another. That is what I’m saying sotomayor does.

[@rolandthethompsongunner64]

Why was this fee on fisheries imposed ?

[@mightymindy7142]

The agency wants to rule over and babysit fishermen who have be fishing for generations! To charge them over 700 dollars, to babysit fishermen who generations of experience. The agency wants to shut down fisheries. They want us to eat bugs.

[@llibressal]

It's not merely a fee. It's a requirement for fishermen to pay the salary of an ecologist to ride along on every fishing expedition for the purpose of ecological oversight. His salary falls in the range of $700ish a day.

[@charlietullos6726]

Same way the pistol brace crap happens They had a loose law they switched and chanced on a whim at their free will from people who don’t get elected

[@charlietullos6726]

Same way the pistol brace crap happens They had a loose law they switched and chanced on a whim at their free will from people who don’t get elected

[@charlietullos6726]

Same way the pistol brace crap happens They had a loose law they switched and chanced on a whim at their free will from people who don’t get elected

[@OttawaMikes]

Obviously there should be a regulator assignment to every home to prevent administrative violations. No? What's the difference?

[@garywarren6285]

Only the Congress may pass laws, and only within the constraints of the Constitution. The Congress has no authority to defer or delegate that duty to any one but in one confined issue. The Courts have no authority to make law, but often do via "interpretation" which is all to often "alteration" or pure "fabrication". The bureaucracies have none. Zero. If the bureaucrats can order private citizens to hire government inspectors how long before you get a visit and a bill for an appliance compliance or green energy insulation inspection of your house?

[@theyux1]

What is the basis for your claim that Congress can not defer power. It sounds objectively untrue.

[@mgbgt7156]

The Government under Kerry will soon start with the Green plan on all Home owners, Your home will be Green or you will pay Fines till they take away your home. Remember the World economic forum you will own nothing and be Happy.

[@garywarren6285]

There is a document called the Constitution that is suppose to govern this Country which lays out the duties and authorities of the Congress. But for the authority to waive the "consent and advise" duty in the Senate the Congress have no defined author to defer or delegate. This lesson is free. No charge. @@theyux1

[@Piant_Genis]

@@theyux1 because the Constitution says that legislation is Congress's responsibility. Legislation being enacted by anyone besides Congress is unconstitutional.

[@theyux1]

@Piant_Genis but it does not say they can not depegate that responsibility. Or do you think the POTUS ahoupd not be able to delegate any of the POTUS responsibilities? Common sense dictates that if the founding fathers did not wish congress the ability to delegate, they would have clarified that.

[@sandrajones8871]

If the government is going to require these 'observers' aboard the fishing vessels... the government should pay that observer's salary!

[@srsmopar3808]

"government should pay" LOL you mean taxpayers.

[@fortusvictus8297]

@@srsmopar3808 to be fair, per the logic of Chevron, it was the taxpayer who is requiring the observers on the vessels. Chevron was all about 'courts are not elected, the executive branch is, ergo executive should be favored in these decisions'.

[@kalijasin]

Interpretation of the laws in terms ambiguity, constitutionality, etc.. belongs to the court and Not the federal agencies. See, Marbury v. Madison

[@finalcountdown7658]

FYI: There are one to two ad breaks appropriately every 3 minutes on this video. You can find this same exact oral argument elsewhere in full uninterrupted if you look.

[@fortusvictus8297]

ad blockers ftw.

[@cokdnlokd1238]

The out of control agencies should have no say in interpretation of implementation.

[@tjepting1]

I think the government's attorney did a wonderful job here, but Clement was purely brilliant. The 3 Dems are a hard no, Roberts seems possible he can go either direction, Barrett and Kavanaugh I would put as likely, and Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito are an absolute yes vote to overturn Chevron. (Just how I see it)

[@trailerhaul8200]

Get rid of it. As anything on earth, when used right and ethically, we should support it. But this doctrine is now a most powerful loophole that some overstepped agencies use to make our lives uneasy.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

Ignoring the obvious problem of the Courts becoming legislators in the near future: Every company will want a case, watch the flood gates open! My Question: Why should this subset of Laws be treated differently to other Laws? There is no mechanism in which I can argue the Laws concerning Murder do not apply to me, if I kill someone there will be an investigation. There is no mechanism in which I can argue the Laws concerning Taxation do not apply to me, my income is going to be reviewed like everyone else's. There is no mechanism in which I can argue the Laws concerning Voter Fraud do not apply to me, I can not rig the next election even if I had an argument for Immunity. Yet, for some Laws, we are going to allow companies to make such arguments? Those that allow the Executive some flexibility when it comes to application.... Nah, can't have the Executive branch using vague laws against the corporate desires. That they are meant to reserve for the public!

[@finalcountdown7658]

If a law is vague, courts should side with the citizens, corporations, or even small mom and pop business. You're obsessed with hurting corporations, but Chevron affects all of the aforementioned. Government agencies should NOT be creating defacto law, regulations should not change at the drop of the hat via which party is in the White House, and it's Congresses job to close any perceived "loopholes" or ambiguity in the law.

[@fortusvictus8297]

The implication you give that government agencies and corporations are not the exact same people who go to the exact same parties and share the exact same wives and rotate like a revolving door between federal employment and corporate leadership is quite amusing in the 'I am frightened by your lack of understanding' kind of way.

[@charlietullos6726]

EVERYONE GO TO 12:30 AND LISTEN TO THAT GAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFENDING CHEVRON AND TELL ME THAT ISNT DICTATOR TALK FROM HER! Chevron has to go!!!!

[@Rustyshackelford177]

Thanks for that analysis - but that gal is a Supreme Court justice not from the department of justice - so I’m starting to question your expertise in this area.

[@gaiustacitus4242]

How is it that the Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States cannot read the plain language of the Constitution which states at Article I, Section 1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." There is no implied permission by the free, independent, and sovereign States which ratified the Constitution to permit Congress to delegate its legislative authority, and especially not to any agency of the Executive Branch. The current system whereby agencies of the Executive Branch not only make regulations, which are given deference by the federal courts as if they have the full weight of law, violates the separation of powers necessary for the proper function of a republican form of government. These agencies not only make the law, but they have agency police which enforce the laws, and agency courts which issue binding opinions. This system makes the Executive Branch judge, jury, and executioner -- and THIS IS TYRANNY! If the SCOTUS were to do its duty, then it would strike down not only the Chevron decision but each and every regulation created by any agency of the Executive Branch.

[@theyux1]

Its pretty straightforward congress should limit Chevron, not the Supreme Court.

[@livingthelife1988]

Most of congress see it as a good feature not a bug to not do their job.

[@jeffmoser4034]

It’s a terrible court decision. Why shouldn’t it be corrected by the court?

[@srsmopar3808]

Chevron is bullshit. If a government agency can change the rules (flip flop) whenever they feel like it, it is not law, it is totalitarian.

[@Ilych367]

the supreme court exists to provide a check on the executive and legislature.

[@theyux1]

@Ilych367 its a check on the executive. The only check on the legislative branch is violations of the constitution. The constitution does now bar delegation of power of any branch. Thus this is all masterbation. If it the POTUS would have to approve everything personally. And thier goes the lower courts.

[@geakin5458]

Again I say, End the 4th branch of Government.

[@llibressal]

Chevron motivates lawmakers to pass MORE ambiguous legislation, which leads to corruption at the administrative level.

[@ak102986]

But Congress rarely passes anything, anymore. So, what the government cannot regulate because Congress cannot pass legislation?

[@llibressal]

@ak102986 Like, pointed out in these arguments, they don't need to when the administrative agencies can just wing it whichever way they want it to go.

[@ak102986]

@@llibressal Whereas your logic is flawed, there is no promise or guarantee that Congress will pay legislation if Chevron is overturned, which is exactly what right-wing and corporations want. To make it harder to regulate. Plus, then every single decision will result in a legal case and end up being in the court. What takes years and years. And again, making it harder to regulate.

[@Piant_Genis]

@@ak102986 good, it should be harder to regulate. Red tape stunts growth and kills jobs

[@anthonygonzalez9422]

You typed a little, and said even less. Do you know the rules of Chevron? It is not a free pass for agencies or legislators at all. The court ultimately has the power to strike down any agency interpretation by mere assertion that the agency’s interpretation is not reasonable, or bc the will of Congress is clear from the statutory language. There’s no reason it needs to be overturned other than the fact that deregulators and anti-administrative fanatics are offended that they even have to consider the question at all.

[@unbreakable7633]

Regulation has gone too far. Destroying productivity and prosperity.

[@Sarah-im3lp]

We're the most prosperous economy in the world! There goes your theory!

[@toashez2410]

@@Sarah-im3lp 🤡

[@sine3287]

​@Sarah-im3lp That's changing and is under threat by China among other countries trying to destroy the dominance of the dollar.

[@prometheusrex1]

Overrule Chevron deference! Get rid of federal agencies or minimize their power.

[@AMERICANPATRIOT1945]

@@Sarah-im3lp , Manufacturing is the biggest driver of success for any large industrial economy such as the USA. Having a strong, broad, and self sufficient capable manufacturing base is necessary for strong national security. Excessive government bureaucratic regulation is a drag on innovation, entrepreneurship, and economically viable manufacturing. Excessive regulation is one of the drivers in the offshoring of US manufacturing. Excessive bureaucracy makes it nigh impossible to start many types of businesses, especially manufacturing. Small companies involved in heavy industry are most impacted by excessive bureaucracy. How can one run a small business when compliance with regulations costs more than doing business? It has become that bad in some cases, and close in other cases. What we need is a system that completely eliminates all administrative punishment due its completely unconstitutional nature. In replacement, all enforcement actions by bureaucracy must go to a full jury trial, no matter how impractical it may seem. This is necessary to prevent petty attacks on our prosperity, rights, and freedoms by bureaucracy.

[@anthonyallison4204]

who ever thought up the absurd bullshit what and enormous waste

[@jimcarlin4586]

Highly paid lawyers who are happy to argue our individual rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) into oblivion.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

Read the 9th. Read Court Oppinon concerning the 9th. Whenver I see 'bill of rights' used as you have, I laugh and then cry. If only your Courts System recognized the 9th, your country would matter.

[@rustleshackleford1553]

This is absolute communism !

[@kyuhotae6410]

This case has significant Third Amendment implications, though given less notice. The Founders saw fit to include a prohibition on the government from forcing a tax of a sort, on the colonialists. King George the III had mandated the "quartering and feeding of (British soldiers) in the homes of the colonialists. Imagine what or who else they must have helped themselves to. The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sec'y of Commerce, matter heavily implicates the rarely cited 3A in addition to the 2A. At least one of the Amici Curiae (Friend of the Court briefs) did cite 3A concerns in that regard (by John S. Park, Esq.), although he did not fully expounded upon it, in my humble opinion. The reason why the Loper case implicates the 3A's "Prohibition Against Quartering of Soldiers" is obvious. The NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) is one the Eight Uniformed Services as defined under 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(5)(B) ("The Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration"). An "agent" of the NOAA, which is the informal name of the enforcement services arm of the of the NMFS ("National Maritime Fisheries Services") implicated in this matter, is a "soldier," for 3A purposes. The per diem requirement of some $710 per day the NOAA has been extracting for so-called "monitoring" under the purported Chevron deference amounts to an extortion by the government which lacks legal authority. Personally, I have no doubt that the purported monitoring has been "outsourced" to some outfit, a "company" contracted to provide such "monitoring services." Do not be surprised if it turns out some sweetheart deal has been going on at the expense of the law and the hapless vessel operators! As Justice Joseph Story once stated, "A man's house is his castle." So is his "vessel," which includes a "foc'sl," or the forecastle, which is the crews' quarters usually in the ship's cramped bow space, where the the captain and the mates would be forced to accommodate the unwelcome presence of a monitor. The proper way to contrue Loper would, therefore be, to view it as a 3A violation first and foremost. Chevron will be effectively retired and relegated to the closet of government intrusion and invasion of citizens' rights. Ultimately, we shall hope to see our rights under the 2A be strengthened and not left up to the arbitrary and precarious whims of a lawless agency, such as the ATF. From Prague, Kyuho Tae

[@CantoniaCustoms]

t. Republican You are aware the third amendment even exists.

[@kyuhotae6410]

@@CantoniaCustoms Indeed, I am…! And that we are a Republic!

[@gaiustacitus4242]

@@kyuhotae6410 Yes, a republic of 50 free, independent, and sovereign nations (the States) and not a democracy as the Democrats so often claim.

[@TheMysticBohemian]

I would argue that justices relying on agencies because, "They know things that courts do not" is the heart of this case and quite flawed. Agencies are highly politically motivated since they are appointed not elected. As the lawyer pointed out, they flip flop depending on the party in the oval office. When deferring to the agency one should consider the implication of a comedy bit from the 80s. (I paraphrase here} "My friend said cocaine is amazing,. It amplifies who you are. My response was, But what if you're an asshole?". Agencies often do not make choices and rules that are in the best interest of the people, but simply because they can. They should not be allowed to add to the financial burden the already struggling small fishing industry, just because it fits with their politically motivated agenda. If they feel more oversight is needed they need to pay for it. Because I said so, has the distinct ring of King George.

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

" Agencies are highly politically motivated since they are appointed not elected" And judges aren't? When did you vote for any judge in a higher circuit court or the supreme court for that matter? I'd rather be subject to the rules of these agencies than a judge. At least the agencies have to go through a committee process of sorts before anything is truly passed. A judge on the other hand? LOL.... yea right.

[@TheMysticBohemian]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 Intelligent response. And the fact that we do not get to vote for supreme court judges is a pet peeve of mine. As is their term limit or rather lack of. I guess it depends on ones experiences with judges and agencies which one would trust more.

[@srsmopar3808]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 "And judges aren't?" LOL, most DEM judges have proven themselves to be corrupt enablers of a broken system, when they should be defenders of a fair system and individual rights based on constitutional law. But hey, what else could you possibly expect from the former party of Slavery, and the current party of Abortion.

[@mackman77095]

According to the left's reasoning. Chevron would allow an agency to regulate a fishery out of existence by requiring four federal officers on each boat earning the Federal Workers Union wages and putting their most senior employees on the boats.

[@nancyschaeffer9884]

What the heck is chevron

[@CantoniaCustoms]

Basically if a law is unclear it's up to the federal agency to determine what the laws mean. Basically, the DEA, ATF, etc can willy nilly "interpret" existing laws far outside what they're supposed to mean

[@srsmopar3808]

"Chevron" is the invented BS that gives government agencies even more power to steal your money and throw you in prison.

[@joshuaphillips755]

"I don't know what ambiguity means" - Capitalists.... Gtfoh, you lucky to be alive at all

[@gaiustacitus4242]

The Democrats' definition of ambiguity - the ability to rule by tyrannical edicts issued by unelected government officials.

[@tracylewis8385]

IM 🍑 44

[@cameronj8827]

obama isnt the president anymore

[@brianphillips9152]

So companies, food manufacturers, drug manufacturers, etc. should police themselves w/r/t product and public safety?

[@Piant_Genis]

Literally no one is saying that

[@rolandthethompsongunner64]

Aren’t the effectively policed when they screw up and get the crap sued out of them?

[@shihtzusrule9115]

Yes, because they have been so good at it and conservatives would just LOVE to go back to the days when average citizens and workers had no rights, "should appreciate the fact that they even have jobs" (direct quote from a former supervisor at a hospital) - get rid of OSHA, FAA, NTSB, CDC, FDA, FTC, FCC, etc. - give the whole country back to corporations and the uber rich they fund. Only congress can blah, blah, blah - only they can't even pass a budget or approve promotions in the military.

[@ev618]

There should be committees in Congress that gives oversite to all of these agencies!

[@llibressal]

​​@@shihtzusrule9115That's a poor interpretation of what's going on here. The large corporations are the only ones capable of complying with the regulations . Reality is 180 degrees opposite of your interpretation.

[@billrentz9133]

The agencies have way too much power, the courts need to do their job and define the law when it is not fair or clear. Overturn the Chevron Doctrine asap.

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

And who will the courts ask to help them decipher all the complicated technical jargon when making a decision on what is an acceptable regulation? How will they get the proper analysis on what is worthy of regulation? Will they hire their own experts to tell them how things work? Because no judge will be able to understand all the technology out there. That's the whole point of deferring to these agencies. Your post makes no sense. But we all know those judges will make decisions based on who bribed them the most with gifts.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 That is the biggest rub of it all: We know the Justices are corrupt! We just caught one of them accepting how many millions in 'gifts?' The argument being presented, that laws are invalid if they are not fully detailed out by Congress for the Executive to follow, calls for the Supreme Court Justices to Legislate whole lines of code out of existence. It won't just be a 'go back to Congress' like people are claiming, Congress passed the Law in the first place and could simply pass the very same thing again, but a complete re-write of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will begin to use Congress like it does the Lower Courts, bouncing back any Law it's patrons deem to be too damaging to their personal interests. Just like when it does so to the Lower Court, said Congress will know it is 'on notice' and needs to 're-judge' the situation as per the Supreme Courts desires. And just wait for it: It will end in Line Item Adjustments.... For those who are not terrorized: That is when the law itself won't be viewed as invalid, thus forcing Congress to do something about it. Instead the individual line within will be found Invalid, and the rest of the Law will stand. Very good chance, in such situations, that Congress isn't even paying attention to the fact the Courts just re-Legislated a Law.

[@jollyrogerq]

These lawyers suck

[@Rustyshackelford177]

These are some of the most talented appellate advocates working today - so no, they don’t.

[@popdavid-dd4lx]

Black people: 😮😏🥲🇺🇸

[@CantoniaCustoms]

when you are literally handed everything on a silver platter and still somehow fail.

[@avail1.]

Friends, the Real Supreme Court and Supreme Judge; God in Heaven is the Only Judge that should be consulted - Revelation 4 / Isaiah 57:15 / Psalm 90:2 🎉❤😊

[@shihtzusrule9115]

Fishing for herring responsibly isn't profitable. Like every other small business, time to get another job. Maybe you could hunt seals or whales. Oops. add herring to the growing list of seafood I don't buy anymore.