The Supreme Court has overturned the forty-year-old Chevron doctrine, which instructed courts to accept agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as they are "reasonable." This decision was significant for liberty and the Constitution, as it restrained prosecutors who had overreached themselves in their pursuit of Jan. 6 cases and gave a long-overdue reprimand to regulators who had gone too far. The doctrine was born out of the days when judges were haphazardly passing laws from the bench, but its shortcomings were apparent from the start.
In lower courts, the theory led to uncertainty and disagreement on issues like whether a particular statute was vague in the first place. Since 2016, the High Court has not used Chevron, preferring to use its significant issues doctrine and fundamental legislative interpretation tools. Lower courts often use and depend on Chevron to uphold even the most questionable regulations.
The Court based its ruling on its analysis of when to respect precedents, emphasizing that Chevron has undermined the very 'rule of law' and is impractical. Justice Neil Gorsuch points out that "these antireliance harms" are not distributed equally, with certain entities and their attorneys being able to stay up to date on changes to the law that impact their rights and obligations, while others might not be able to.
The three liberal Justices worry about "judicial hubris" and the Court becoming the nation's administrative czar in the absence of a compelling legal argument. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan states that "the majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power." However, maintaining the right lane for each department of government is a fundamental constitutional principle.
In light of Chevron's defenestration, courts will have to decide how to interpret certain legislation. In Fischer v. U.S., the Chief exemplifies this process. Prosecutors accused a rioter on January 6 of breaking the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, one of the most improbable laws.
Congress designed a catch-all clause that goes beyond the situations that inspired the legislation, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison. The Court's rulings from Friday protect individual liberty against an overreaching authority, which is why the Revolutionaries waged war.
Chevron Doctrine goes down and the Constitution is back!
— Hannah Cox (@HannahDCox) June 28, 2024
This Supreme Court is honestly kind of iconic. pic.twitter.com/lu0x5qDnGv
In lower courts, the theory led to uncertainty and disagreement on issues like whether a particular statute was vague in the first place. Since 2016, the High Court has not used Chevron, preferring to use its significant issues doctrine and fundamental legislative interpretation tools. Lower courts often use and depend on Chevron to uphold even the most questionable regulations.
The Court based its ruling on its analysis of when to respect precedents, emphasizing that Chevron has undermined the very 'rule of law' and is impractical. Justice Neil Gorsuch points out that "these antireliance harms" are not distributed equally, with certain entities and their attorneys being able to stay up to date on changes to the law that impact their rights and obligations, while others might not be able to.
The three liberal Justices worry about "judicial hubris" and the Court becoming the nation's administrative czar in the absence of a compelling legal argument. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan states that "the majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power." However, maintaining the right lane for each department of government is a fundamental constitutional principle.
In light of Chevron's defenestration, courts will have to decide how to interpret certain legislation. In Fischer v. U.S., the Chief exemplifies this process. Prosecutors accused a rioter on January 6 of breaking the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, one of the most improbable laws.
Congress designed a catch-all clause that goes beyond the situations that inspired the legislation, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison. The Court's rulings from Friday protect individual liberty against an overreaching authority, which is why the Revolutionaries waged war.
