Chevron deference is dead!!!

[RKG]

MA AWB case that was ruled constitutional using Chevron. It was appealed all the way up to SCOTUS but was refused because, at the time, they wanted to take Bruen. Now, there is an opportunity to request re-hearing with SCOTUS due to an invalid decision using Chevron. SCOTUS will kick it back down and invalidate the lower court decision. The lower circuit will have no choice but to overturn the AWB just like it did with "may issue" after Bruen decision.

Magazine capacity from RI was another one. Chevron was used to rule on almost all 2A cases that were argued in the first district court.

I do not think this is true. Bear in mind that Chevron dealt with agency deference in connection with agency jurisdiction, where the organic statute was considered to be ambiguous as to agency jurisdiction. The Chevron overturning does not, at least directly, curtain agency deference with respect to the substance of legislative regulations that are unambiguously within the scope of agency jurisdiction. That issue, rather, implicates the anti-delegation doctrine, the demise of which I hope one day to see, but hasn't occurred yet.

 

[straightshooterjake]

Getting rid of QI for police would be the ultimate hat trick for SCOTUS and would hopefully calm the savage beasts we have running around in uniforms.

Getting rid of Chevron deference says that the Judicial branch will no longer automatically defer to agencies in the Executive branch. So the ability to interpret ambiguous instructions from the Legislative branch will now move substantially from the Executive branch to the Judicial branch.

Qualified Immunity was created from whole cloth by the Judicial branch as far as I know. And despite some ambivalent feelings, aspects of QI are supported by both the Liberal and Conservative branches of the Court. Support for QI is really support for state power, and statism crosses other ideological boundaries.

While I would like to see QI greatly reformed, I am not expecting that to happen any time soon. And if it does happen, I expect to see small incremental reform, not any major movement. I'm not saying I'm happy about this, but these are my realistic expectations.

 

[CMEBoston]

This decision really makes practicing CPAs like me and other practitioners looking to the IRS for interpretation of a tax provision and leaves the answer to a judge who may not have any tax experience whatsoever. IRS interpretation allowed for better planning and strategy and even finding loopholes!

Now a similar case could be in two very different jurisdictions. Do you recommend paying now and get tagged with penalties and interest later (depending on timing) or do they hope for a massive refund with accrued interest to come back to them while something winds its way through the courts and is decided in their favor?

I appreciate what the decision means for other things, but it’s incredibly broad and is going to bog down already overloaded court dockets.

Well you’re gonna have to work a little harder just like our elected officials

That’s the sacrifice you have to make for the good of the nation, so thank you

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I do not think this is true. Bear in mind that Chevron dealt with agency deference in connection with agency jurisdiction, where the organic statute was considered to be ambiguous as to agency jurisdiction. The Chevron overturning does not, at least directly, curtain agency deference with respect to the substance of legislative regulations that are unambiguously within the scope of agency jurisdiction. That issue, rather, implicates the anti-delegation doctrine, the demise of which I hope one day to see, but hasn't occurred yet.

I may be interpreting this incorrectly but the state argued that balancing of "needs of the greater populace safety" was in line with the second amendment definition and therefore the executive branch had the right to interpret the 2nd amendment thusly

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Getting rid of Chevron deference says that the Judicial branch will no longer automatically defer to agencies in the Executive branch. So the ability to interpret ambiguous instructions from the Legislative branch will now move substantially from the Executive branch to the Judicial branch.

This is interesting! Does it mean the Maura's proclamation that changed the definition of AWB is no longer valid and therefore null and void!? Does it mean no more Classified ads "pre-Maura AR for $3000"!?

 

[Fixxah]

This is interesting! Does it mean the Maura's proclamation that changed the definition of AWB is no longer valid and therefore null and void!? Does it mean no more Classified ads "pre-Maura AR for $3000"!?

November lowers are worth $127 now. And glok mags $23. Sorry Chris.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Forget the ATF. I'm waiting for the lawsuits to rein in the DOL and the SEC. The F'ing DOL has created regulations to oversee IRA's under ERISA. ERISA is a PENSION LAW. Damn! Worse - the SEC has decided that it will be teh policeman for the DOL on this. F them as well. Rein in this stupid government.

I hate the SEC. I was writing a blog today and mentioned NVIDIA. I had to worry if hte SEC is going to think I'm reocmmendning NVIDIA to people. I'm sorry. WHAT? Honestly! How dumb of a regulation is this? I'm not in teh busines of selling individual stocks you stupid cucks! I don't make money that way. So if I like a stock or not, IT IS IRRELEVANT. They are so far past what SEA33 and 34 designed them to do. Just toolbags.

Oh, and the ATF stuff will be nice, too. But this is SO far reaching for ALL of federal government.

 

[RKG]

I may be interpreting this incorrectly but the state argued that balancing of "needs of the greater populace safety" was in line with the second amendment definition and therefore the executive branch had the right to interpret the 2nd amendment thusly

 

[RKG]

All of that may be so, but it does not raise a Chevron issue. Chevron dealt with the question of who decides the limitLof agency jurisdiction where the agency's organic statute is thought to be ambiguous. Chevron said the agency prevails over the court; the Lorper decision overrule Chevron and held that the court prevails.

 

[RKG]

Getting rid of Chevron deference says that the Judicial branch will no longer automatically defer to agencies in the Executive branch. . . .

Only insofar as it relates to the scope of agency jurisdiction.

 

[RKG]

This decision is a huge deal as a ruling that prevents other agencies from overreaching their authority. That said, I think this ruling is a hollow victory for 2A. There has not been a single lower court ruling that used Chevron in the post-Bruen era. The Bruen test has made it impossible to use chevron.

I would correct the first sentence to read: "This decision is a huge deal as a ruling that prevents other agencies from overreaching their jurisdiction."

 

[kingson]

I founds some of these quotes amusing in this Newsweek article

Joyce Vance, a former United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said the overturning of Chevron "dramatically reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government, knocking the checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers off kilter."

I thought it was brining it back inline with the way the Founding Fathers intend

"Especially since the only way agencies can now avoid having the courts oversee their decisions is to have Congress pass clear, unambiguous laws—something that has rarely been the case and is even less likely with the current political dysfunction in that institution," she continued. "It's important for us to understand that this is a highly technical legal ruling that impacts us all."

Waaah, Now Congress will have to do it's job. Sadly I can see their point because it's hard for Congress to do their job and it's easier to let the agency interpret the vague law that they passed. Their point is wrong because that's not the way it's supposed to be done. Hopefully this will make Congress get off their ass and do their job and write laws that are well defined but I don't see that happening anytime soon

 

[RKG]

I founds some of these quotes amusing in this Newsweek article



I thought it was brining it back inline with the way the Founding Fathers intend


Waaah, Now Congress will have to do it's job. Sadly I can see their point because it's hard for Congress to do their job and it's easier to let the agency interpret the vague law that they passed. Their point is wrong because that's not the way it's supposed to be done. Hopefully this will make Congress get off their ass and do their job and write laws that are well defined but I don't see that happening anytime soon

Concur, times two.

 

[Lank]

I'm glad this happened and I want my pound of flesh back from the administrative state

 

[Andy in NH]

Does this make all bureaucratic edicts void now?

To quote an associate that I agree with:

"If anybody thinks all those bossy bureaucrats are going to stop being bossy I got news for you. This changes nothing."

 

[xtry51]

To quote an associate that I agree with:

"If anybody thinks all those bossy bureaucrats are going to stop being bossy I got news for you. This changes nothing."

SCOTUS again missed an opportunity to simply blanket strike down all regulations on the spot.

"Having struck down Chevron, as of this day all regulations not explicitly outlined in law passed by congress is null and void".

Heaven forbid we just toss out all unconstitutional rules all at once. Let's instead f*** over millions of Americans and force tens of thousands of court cases to be filed.

 

[jkelly1229]

SCOTUS again missed an opportunity to simply blanket strike down all regulations on the spot.

"Having struck down Chevron, as of this day all regulations not explicitly outlined in law passed by congress is null and void".

Heaven forbid we just toss out all unconstitutional rules all at once. Let's instead f*** over millions of Americans and force tens of thousands of court cases to be filed.

Job security

 

[Toast]

I hate the SEC. I was writing a blog today and mentioned NVIDIA. I had to worry if hte SEC is going to think I'm reocmmendning NVIDIA to people. I'm sorry. WHAT? Honestly! How dumb of a regulation is this? I'm not in teh busines of selling individual stocks you stupid cucks! I don't make money that way. So if I like a stock or not, IT IS IRRELEVANT. They are so far past what SEA33 and 34 designed them to do. Just toolbags.

Wait, so are you really saying that you really like NVIDIA? How much do you like it? Should I go all in?

 

[milktree]

Getting rid of QI for police would be the ultimate hat trick for SCOTUS and would hopefully calm the savage beasts we have running around in uniforms.

QI isn't just a problem of police misbehavior. It's also used by crooked mayors and inspectors and appeals boards DAs and every other "public servant"

QI needs to be eliminated in its entirety. It has zero value to anyone other than the jack booted or tie wearing thugs in power.

I say that because ALL the excuses for why it's "necessary" involve arguments like, "couldn't do their job for fear of..." or "waste their time with frivolous lawsuits" or other things. But here's the thing: Before Qualified Immunity was invented out of whole cloth THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM. The courts are already really good at filtering out meritless claims or bogus complaints. There haven't ever been any cases of cops being tied up in court for doing their job. It isn't now, and never has been, a problem to be solved.

The Institute for Justice covers this all the time.

Well you’re gonna have to work a little harder just like our elected officials

That’s the sacrifice you have to make for the good of the nation, so thank you

You're missing the point. If you get what seems like sound advice from a CPA, but then someone at the IRS disagrees and the judge doesn't understand tax law, you might be f***ed. And it's impossible to get a solid answer from your CPA because they can't know the rules anymore.

It's like so many gun laws: it doesn't matter what the law says in plain English or what a qualified attorney tells you, if the court system decides you're a "bad person" and they want to make an example of you.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

QI isn't just a problem of police misbehavior. It's also used by crooked mayors and inspectors and appeals boards DAs and every other "public servant"

QI needs to be eliminated in its entirety. It has zero value to anyone other than the jack booted or tie wearing thugs in power.

I say that because ALL the excuses for why it's "necessary" involve arguments like, "couldn't do their job for fear of..." or "waste their time with frivolous lawsuits" or other things. But here's the thing: Before Qualified Immunity was invented out of whole cloth THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM. The courts are already really good at filtering out meritless claims or bogus complaints. There haven't ever been any cases of cops being tied up in court for doing their job. It isn't now, and never has been, a problem to be solved.

The Institute for Justice covers this all the time.





You're missing the point. If you get what seems like sound advice from a CPA, but then someone at the IRS disagrees and the judge doesn't understand tax law, you might be f***ed. And it's impossible to get a solid answer from your CPA because they can't know the rules anymore.

It's like so many gun laws: it doesn't matter what the law says in plain English or what a qualified attorney tells you, if the court system decides you're a "bad person" and they want to make an example of you.

Yes in my mind the first people to lose QI should be politicians since they are the ones who stir the pot. Cops are at the end of the food chain and if enough of these disastrous politicians are sued into oblivion then maybe we can let police do police things.