SCOTUS Drives Stake Into Chevron Deference Heart - It's DEAD and GONE!!

[JAL]

Posted details this in the Political sub-forum here:
[fixed link to merged thread]

This is the "Loper Bright" Decision we've been waiting for!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/scotus-to-hear-loper-bright-enterprises.535524/post-9971437

Putting the link here as it will have major impact on BATFE Rulemaking!! I expect this will affect the Pistol Brace and especially the recent BATFE Rule redefining who is in the business of selling firearms (i.e. an FFL).

 

[INPatriot]

Posted details this in the Political sub-forum here:
[fixed link to merged thread]

This is the "Loper Bright" Decision we've been waiting for!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/scotus-to-hear-loper-bright-enterprises.535524/post-9971437

Putting the link here as it will have major impact on BATFE Rulemaking!! I expect this will affect the Pistol Brace and especially the recent BATFE Rule redefining who is in the business of selling firearms (i.e. an FFL).

@JAL As soon as i heard it, I wanted to reach out.

You've diligently led many of us through the legal aspect of this with great stewardship.

 

[1775usmarine]

Dupe

 

[rugertoter]

Dead and gone is good.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Dupe

[fixed link to merged thread]

This is the "Loper Bright" Decision we've been waiting for!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/scotus-to-hear-loper-bright-enterprises.535524/post-9971437

Looks like it should've been a triple merge @KellyinAvon .

 

[JAL]

[fixed link to merged thread]

This is the "Loper Bright" Decision we've been waiting for!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/scotus-to-hear-loper-bright-enterprises.535524/post-9971437

Looks like it should've been a triple merge @KellyinAvon .

Put a link here to the other thread because it's in a different sub-forum.

 

[MrSmitty]

Can someone explain in plain talk what the Chevron decision means…. I’m just a dumb old retired welder
I thought Chevron was a gas company.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Can someone explain in plain talk what the Chevron decision means…. I’m just a dumb old retired welder
I thought Chevron was a gas company.

It was from a case back in 1984 IIRC. It more or less created the "managerial class" of unelected/unappointed bureaucrats who can make rules that have the force of law.

West Virginia v EPA 2022 started to turn the corner on fixing this. In that decision Justice Gorsuch cited an 1810 case that basically said "making laws is the responsibility of the legislative branch."

 

[INPatriot]

Can someone explain in plain talk what the Chevron decision means…. I’m just a dumb old retired welder
I thought Chevron was a gas company.

It's all about (over) regulation by government agencies/government agencies attempting to create law.

In 1981, Chevron, the gas company challenged the Environmental Protection Agency that a previous court ruling did not give specifics when it came to pollution. Since no specifics were given, enterprises were hamstrung by the EPA anytime they wanted to grow or expand.

It allowed business to expand with new technologies that would reduce emissions without going through the burdens of EPA permitting, which probably would have never received approval.

 

[JAL]

Can someone explain in plain talk what the Chevron decision means…. I’m just a dumb old retired welder
I thought Chevron was a gas company.

More on this . . .
The 1984 Chevron Decision resulted in the Fed District, Appellate and even SCOTUS being lazy, with these Constitution Art III Courts letting the Executive Agencies interpret Federal Law as they chose and desired to unimpeded and very rarely declaring an Executive Agency Rule not authorized by Federal Law. The courts were "deferring" to those agencies deciding what they were authorized to do by Federal Law. The Loper Bright / Relentless lawsuit challenged the Chevron Deference principle and SCOTUS finally rolled it back, and stated under no uncertain terms that the Federal Courts must do their job, with the judges/justices rolling up their sleeves, and properly analyzing whether or not an Agency Rule is implementing something and acting in accordance with what that Agency is authorized to do by Federal Law. Puts a final stop to Agencies "legislating" and usurping that Power solely delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

The most recent Bump Stock Decision (Cargill) foretold where this decision regarding Chevron Deference was going. It helps put more nails in the coffin on the challenges to the BATFE Pistol Brace Rule.

 

[KellyinAvon]

More on this . . .
The 1984 Chevron Decision resulted in the Fed District, Appellate and even SCOTUS being lazy, with these Constitution Art III Courts letting the Executive Agencies interpret Federal Law as they chose and desired to unimpeded and very rarely declaring an Executive Agency Rule not authorized by Federal Law. The courts were "deferring" to those agencies deciding what they were authorized to do by Federal Law. The Loper Bright / Relentless lawsuit challenged the Chevron Deference principle and SCOTUS finally rolled it back, and stated under no uncertain terms that the Federal Courts must do their job, with the judges/justices rolling up their sleeves, and properly analyzing whether or not an Agency Rule is implementing something and acting in accordance with what that Agency is authorized to do by Federal Law. Puts a final stop to Agencies "legislating" and usurping that Power solely delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

The most recent Bump Stock Decision (Cargill) foretold where this decision regarding Chevron Deference was going. It helps put more nails in the coffin on the challenges to the BATFE Pistol Brace Rule.

1984 was 40 years ago... scary, I know.

Who were the SCOTUS Justices in 1984?

Warren Burger (Chief Justice) Nixon appointee

William Brennan, Eisenhower appointee (no ****, became a Justice in 1956)

Byron White, JFK appointee. Also was the Navy JAG who investigated the PT-109 sinking.

Thurgood Marshall, LBJ appointee. Was US Solicitor General in 1966. In Miranda v Arizona his stance was that if suspects were made aware of their rights it would put public safety in danger.

Harry Blackmon, Nixon appointee

Lewis Powell, Nixon appointee

William Rehnquist, Nixon appointee

John Paul Stevens, Ford appointee. Wrote the dissent in DC v Heller 2008

Sandra Day-O'Conner, Reagan appointee. President Reagan made up for this SCOTUS selection with his next pick, Antonin Scalia.

 

[racegunz]

Not having a crystal ball, or even a good understanding of what this might actually do…… I have to assume the “agencies” will not just roll back any rule now that they have grown accustomed to power. Seems like it’s just going to make a lot of lawyers more money.

 

[JAL]

Not having a crystal ball, or even a good understanding of what this might actually do…… I have to assume the “agencies” will not just roll back any rule now that they have grown accustomed to power. Seems like it’s just going to make a lot of lawyers more money.

In addition to that, any lawsuits brought now about Agency Rules that were already adjudicated to a Final Judgement will be dismissed in Summary Judgement as being Settled Law that cannot be relitigated (in Latin Legalese: res judicata). Not a 100% absolute guarantee of that, but damn near. In other words, there won't be a flurry of civil suits being filed to redo (aka do-over) hundreds of Decisions made over the past 40 years. It would require a novel claim that wasn't made and litigated before to have some hope of getting any traction.

However, parties to civil suits in progress can pick up this SCOTUS Decision up and bring it to the court's attention.

 

[JAL]

@JAL As soon as i heard it, I wanted to reach out.

You've diligently led many of us through the legal aspect of this with great stewardship.

Thanks. I've had my ear to the rail on a number of cases, watching them closely. A lot of stuff is slowly grinding forward now without any significant news.

In addition, I've been catching up on about 500 movies I've not watched yet, plus another 100 piled up to watch again. Doesn't include over a half-dozen major TV series, some of them old, that are also piled up. I have a monstrous film library on 2k Blu-ray and 4k UHD, with a comparatively very small number on DVD. The ~100 are 4k UHD I bought to replace 2k Blu-rays. Anything new is acquired on 4k UHD, if it's been released in that format. The watch/rewatch rate has not been keeping pace with the acquisition rate.

 

[BigRed]

So....Impact on braces?

Impact on bump stocks?

 

[Magyars]

So....Impact on braces?

Impact on bump stocks?

And anything mandated by ATF

 

[KellyinAvon]

So....Impact on braces?

Impact on bump stocks?

Those are specific cases that have been victories as of late.

Loper Bright is a YYYUUUGGGEEEE win because it goes straight at the 3-letter agencies operating as an unelected/unappointed 4th branch of government.

Loper Bright was fisherman being forced to pay for federal sea monitors by NOAA. This got Chevron thrown out in a big OH HELL NO from SCOTUS because it was a bad decision 40 years ago.

The more I read, it was only 6 Justices barely making a quorum in Chevron. Here's a bit of the 8 page syllabus:

By forcing courts to instead pretend that ambiguities are necessarily
delegations, Chevron prevents judges from judging. Pp. 23–26.
(4) Because Chevron’s justifying presumption is, as Members of
the Court have often recognized, a fiction, the Court has spent the bet-
ter part of four decades imposing one limitation on Chevron after an-
other. Confronted with the byzantine set of preconditions and excep-
tions that has resulted, some courts have simply bypassed Chevron or
failed to heed its various steps and nuances. The Court, for its part,
has not deferred to an agency interpretation under Chevron since
2016. But because Chevron remains on the books, litigants must con-
tinue to wrestle with it, and lower courts—bound by even the Court’s
crumbling precedents—understandably continue to apply it. At best,
Chevron has been a distraction from the question that matters: Does
the statute authorize the challenged agency action? And at worst, it
has required courts to violate the APA by yielding to an agency the
express responsibility, vested in “the reviewing court,” to “decide all
relevant questions of law” and “interpret . . . statutory provisions.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

 

[Bugzilla]

So do all these agency “laws” become null and void or does each one need to be brought up before a court to have them nullified?

 

[cobber]

And anything mandated by ATF

Doesn’t apply retroactively if I’m reading it correctly.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Justice Thomas's concurrence is 4 pages and worth a read (pdf page 44)

Justice Gorsuch's concurrence is 33 pages long (pdf page 48) I do not recommend it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf