This is the best summary I could come up with:
For the last four decades, the Chevron doctrine provided a simple test with two distinct questions for judges to evaluate whether the agencies under the executive branch are rightly going about things the way Congress intended:
For example, the doctrine empowers agencies to adjust regulations when better information comes to light, if unexpected emergencies arise (like the Covid pandemic), or when circumstances shift, knowing that they have a better chance of winning in court.
The EPA had lost a lower court judgment on whether it had the right to allow businesses to exploit loopholes that would effectively scale back the application of the Clean Air Act.
It all came down to questions over the word “source.” After Congress passed a bill creating an extensive review process for any new stationary source of air pollution (say, a factory), Reagan’s EPA softened the definition to muddy the new requirements and free companies to more easily make changes.
Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion outlined the two-step test concluding that agency experts should be empowered to fill policy gaps left by the legislative branch – not judges.
“While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices – resolving the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities … Federal judges – who have no constituency – have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” Jody Freeman, a leading administrative law expert at Harvard Law School, explains that the 1984 ruling delegated power to agencies and their experts, enabling them to “regulate our modern economy, set and enforce public health standards, protect consumers, and much more”.
The original article contains 1,545 words, the summary contains 310 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
