Idk what’s meant with chaos. Chevron deference has been around for a while and it overbroadens the powers of federal agencies to a point where you could say they are judge and jury in their own case, while also having no accountability in practice to the judicial branch.
TL;DR Chevron deference bad, new law on this is good. I disagree with the article.
There are plenty of laws passed by Congress that don’t cover every eventuality. The Chevron doctrine allows agencies to make relatively minor changes that cover those loopholes. Taking away that ability would mean requiring that every new law cover every possibility.
Well I can tell you what’s happening right now because of Chevron deference and it’s stupid af.
Look at Sackett v EPA 2022: a couple bought a lot,began filling up the ground with dirt to a lay foundation. The EPA stepped in, declared the stuff they filled up to be “Waters of the United States” and found they had violated environmental protection regulations. We’re not talking river, lake or God forbid, an ocean. We’re talking somewhere between small water body and puddle.
Why were they able to do that? Chevron deference meant that the EPA in this case is not clear on the exact definition surrounding this water body. So they decided it’s included in the “Waters of the United States”. You know the worst part? If a court rules differently on the definition, they are allowed to discard that definition and instead use their own.
And this is what I mean. There’s no reason to give agency such broad unchecked power. Now even though this water dispute is annoying for the couple, it’s rather silly on paper. Now imagine the same with the NSA or CIA. Suddenly this is not as silly anymore.
There’s a great Livestream on YouTube where a well versed lawyer gives a quick overview on that case and why Chevron deference is so dangerous but unfortunately I can’t find it anymore.
The bottom line is, you can’t ask agencies to defer to a court before making any small decision, but you also can’t just let them make their own legal definitions. There has to be something in between. It’s not working rn.
Idk what’s meant with chaos. Chevron deference has been around for a while and it overbroadens the powers of federal agencies to a point where you could say they are judge and jury in their own case, while also having no accountability in practice to the judicial branch.
TL;DR Chevron deference bad, new law on this is good. I disagree with the article.
There are plenty of laws passed by Congress that don’t cover every eventuality. The Chevron doctrine allows agencies to make relatively minor changes that cover those loopholes. Taking away that ability would mean requiring that every new law cover every possibility.
Well I can tell you what’s happening right now because of Chevron deference and it’s stupid af.
Look at Sackett v EPA 2022: a couple bought a lot,began filling up the ground with dirt to a lay foundation. The EPA stepped in, declared the stuff they filled up to be “Waters of the United States” and found they had violated environmental protection regulations. We’re not talking river, lake or God forbid, an ocean. We’re talking somewhere between small water body and puddle.
Why were they able to do that? Chevron deference meant that the EPA in this case is not clear on the exact definition surrounding this water body. So they decided it’s included in the “Waters of the United States”. You know the worst part? If a court rules differently on the definition, they are allowed to discard that definition and instead use their own.
And this is what I mean. There’s no reason to give agency such broad unchecked power. Now even though this water dispute is annoying for the couple, it’s rather silly on paper. Now imagine the same with the NSA or CIA. Suddenly this is not as silly anymore.
There’s a great Livestream on YouTube where a well versed lawyer gives a quick overview on that case and why Chevron deference is so dangerous but unfortunately I can’t find it anymore.
The bottom line is, you can’t ask agencies to defer to a court before making any small decision, but you also can’t just let them make their own legal definitions. There has to be something in between. It’s not working rn.