BEFORE:
the world under Chevron was a travesty of justice
• Chevron required courts to systematically
favor (i.e., pre-commit to preferring) the
executive branch’s statutory interpretations,
abandoning their core constitutional duty to
exercise independent judgment.
• Even when a court thought the non-agency
litigant had the better of a n argument, the
federal agency won as long as the court
deemed the statute ‘ambiguous’ and the
agency’s position merely ‘reasonable.’
• Chevron prevented Americans from having
their cases against agencies (and agencies’
cases against them heard by impartial
adjudicators, but due process at a bare
minimum requires an unbiased judge.
• Congress delegated judicial power-which it
does not possess in the first place-to be
administered b y executive agencies.
• Chevron ignored Section 7 0 6 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, a law that
required de novo review.
AFTER
the world under Loper Bright/Relentless has restored justice
• Courts-not agencies-have the authority to
interpret laws. Judges-not agency
‘experts’-are expert in legal interpretation.
Loper Bright/Relentless revives judges’ ability
and duty to exercise independent judgment.
• As the Court ruled, Section 706 of the
Administrative Procedure Act prohibits Chevron
deference by requiring courts to interpret
statutes de novo. And it always has, ever since
the APA passed in 1946.
• Agencies can still offer statutory
interpretations; their views can persuade but
will no longer bind courts.
• Agencies will no longer exercise judicial
power, and the fiction that Congress ever
delegated such power will no longer prevail.
• Administrative law didn’t prevent agencies
from regulating before Chevron. After Chevron,
regulation will continue, but within
constitutional bounds. States like California
regulate plenty without Chevron.
| Date of Publication | Title | Author | Publication | Type | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test | View | ||||
| Date of Publication | Title | Author | Publication | Type | Link |