Supreme Court: Chevron Deference

AchillesLastStand

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
50
Display Name

Display name:
AchillesLastStand
The Supreme Court will likely be trashing Chevron deference soon. In a nutshell, this cedes power to federal agencies to operate how they see fit, citing their expertise in whatever field. Essentially, this is one reason agencies run amok.

This COULD change the landscape in which we currently operate. Obviously, lawmakers would have to pass laws in regards to the FAA, but it’s something to watch.
 
I’ll believe that when I see it. The Feds don’t just give up their power.
 
Congress can’t even follow a regular budget process and you expect them to write every letter of all federal regulations? Wow. And the idea that agencies just make “stuff” up and can do whatever they want is nonsense. Congress writes the laws, agencies interpret and operate within those laws. And the check is the federal court system.

If you want to see amok just watch what happens if they toss this, no agency will be able to do anything. Which is of course the point.
 
The Supreme Court will likely be trashing Chevron deference soon. In a nutshell, this cedes power to federal agencies to operate how they see fit, citing their expertise in whatever field. Essentially, this is one reason agencies run amok.

This COULD change the landscape in which we currently operate. Obviously, lawmakers would have to pass laws in regards to the FAA, but it’s something to watch.
I've heard that multiple times in the years since Chevron. I think it's doubtful they will trash it entirely. There have been a series of inroads to limit the amount of deference given, and I can see the trend continuing, but I expect there to always be some level deference to agency expertise in interpreting its own regulations.

What have you read that makes you think the SCOTUS will do more than that?
 
I've heard that multiple times in the years since Chevron. I think it's doubtful they will trash it entirely. There have been a series of inroads to limit the amount of deference given, and I can see the trend continuing, but I expect there to always be some level deference to agency expertise in interpreting its own regulations.

What have you read that makes you think the SCOTUS will do more than that?


This author keeps a pretty close watch on what’s going on and usually has a pretty even handed analysis:

>>>
“A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.”
<<<

 
The big issues, IMO, are that agencies randomly change interpretations without a rule making process.

The regs go through a formal process. Interpretations and advisories do not and may not be in line with the laws or the regulations.

BATFE is famous for this. X is legal. X is illegal. Oh, X is legal no. Oh no, X is illegal now. So, I have something that I bought legally, that is declared illegal, then legal, then illegal and you want to send me to prison for having it.
 
The generation of regulations isn't the problem.
Well it’s going to be the problem if they throw this out. Then it will be up to judges to effectively write regulations on things from AI to the environment to chemical regulation and disposal to… aviation safety. It will then be judges with no expertise whatsoever writing every federal regulation under the sun.

That’ll go well.
 
How does that impact the airport situation? Here they propose some idiotic noise ablation strategy that would have students doing tailwind landings up to something like 12 knots. All for those folks who moved in under the approach and take off path for an airport that’s been around since ww2.

Luckily Transport Canada and the Nav Can controllers still consider safety important and I haven’t seen anyone being told to take the tailwind. Except for yours truly because his instructor thought first few night landings should be more interesting.
 
They certainly won't. But it would result in the courts invalidating a lot more agency rulemaking.
The media seem to be interpreting this case as something that could eliminate federal agencies' ability to write regulations at all. Are they exaggerating? I was under the impression that the main consequence of the Chevron decision was to require courts to defer to agencies' interpretation of their own regulations.
 
And the Judicial branch is saying that Chevron is a bad idea...

Also: IBTL
Translated as: a few members of the judicial branch, who were narrowly appointed by a handful of elected officials, are saying that Chevron is a bad idea.

Also commonly referred to as "activist judges" when precedent is overturned by judges appointed by a party that you are not a member of.
 
Well it’s going to be the problem if they throw this out. Then it will be up to judges to effectively write regulations on things from AI to the environment to chemical regulation and disposal to… aviation safety. It will then be judges with no expertise whatsoever writing every federal regulation under the sun.

That’ll go well.
Nope. They would still write regulations IAW the law and their legal authority. But if they want to make unreasonable interpretations, try you and punish you, they would have to defend them in court. You know, a checks and balances thing.
 
Translated as: a few members of the judicial branch, who were narrowly appointed by a handful of elected officials, are saying that Chevron is a bad idea.

Also commonly referred to as "activist judges" when precedent is overturned by judges appointed by a party that you are not a member of.

Or, as it's taught in school: That's a part of the checks and balances against any single entity having total power.
 
Other than Mark, I wonder who all actually know what they’re talking about vs think they know what they’re talking about.
 
Other than Mark, I wonder who all actually know what they’re talking about vs think they know what they’re talking about.

Oh I know I don't know what I'm talking about. But arguing on here always amuses me.
 
Oh I know I don't know what I'm talking about. But arguing on here always amuses me.

While self-amusing, for the spectators, it’s like watching monkeys playing football on a cricket pitch.
 
The media seem to be interpreting this case as something that could eliminate federal agencies' ability to write regulations at all. Are they exaggerating?
IMO, yes they are exaggerating.

The argument against Chervon is not about authority or ability to write regulations. Writing regulations involves a fairly strict notice and comment process and authority to write them is given by statute. Chevron deference is about agencies (a) interpreting their own authority to write regulations and (b) interpreting the meaning of statutes and properly enacted regulations.

In our world, I guess we can point to the super-broad way the FAA has defined "compensation" as something "bad" that might not be there in a non-Chevron world. Of course, we can also point to the entire body of "non-regulatory" FAA guidance, including the AIM and the ACs. Literally every big advance we've seen in the RNAV/GPS world is "interpretation," neither "statute" nor "regulation." What if deciding that it was OK to use GPS in lieu of VOR required 6 month to a year of regulatory activity?

But getting rid of Chevron does not even mean the end of interpretations and non-regulatory guidance. Without getting into the weeds, its about what happens when a regulation or or interpretive guidance is challenged. How is it tested for legality? Pure Chevron deference comes down to, "so long as an agency interpretation is rational, it will be upheld." Without Chevron, it just means that challenges would be measured by a different standard.

That's what I think all the cases which have limited Chevron have done - changed what can be challenged and how. And, while I could be wrong, that's all I really see coming out of this case. The decision will be to either uphold or reject the National Fisheries requirement that fishing boats pay federal observers. The decision may be reached by articulating a new standard of deference - what type and how much.
 
Setting aside the fact none of us know anything, is there any merit to reevaluating Chevron, or was it such a solid decision that the only reason it's coming up now is new conservatives on the court?
 
Setting aside the fact none of us know anything, is there any merit to reevaluating Chevron, or was it such a solid decision that the only reason it's coming up now is new conservatives on the court?
It’s been challenged, reviewed, and limited a number of times through the years. It’s not really a liberal vs conservative issue. examination of a doctrine that comes down to, “the agency is always right unless they‘re being ridiculous” always has merit.
 
Last edited:
...“the agency is always right unless their being ridiculous” always has merit...
Exactly. With how everything is politicized these days, I think leaving it so loose is problematic. I'm completely okay with regulators having a check on their power.

Hopefully we'll meet some day. I value your contributions to this forum.
 
Exactly. With how everything is politicized these days, I think leaving it so loose is problematic. I'm completely okay with regulators having a check on their power.

Hopefully we'll meet some day. I value your contributions to this forum.

No no no no no

This is the internet. We have to keep disagreeing and insulting each other for posterity. :biggrin:
 
Back
Top