Why Chevron Matters
Arguing before the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is a case challenging the Chevron Doctrine. This doctrine provides that when unknowns, or ambiguity, exists, matters should be deferred to the professional experience of the government agency involved.
This doctrine enables federal agencies to write rules to implement laws dutifully passed by Congress, but to “fill in the gap” and draft, promote and pass their own rules where these agencies believe Congress wanted. (Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council)
The case being argued (Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo) is about fish and fisheries, but one could look back to Gundy v United States to see where this really could matter.
Gundy was a serious SCOTUS review of SORNA’s origin. Congress passed SORNA in 2006 with few details and actively deferred substantial rulemaking to the US Attorney General, an agency of the Executive branch. While promulgated properly, the Department of Justice has made several revisions to SORNA without any additional congressional direction, or laws passed by Congress directing them to make those changes.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a scathing dissent in Gundy describing the power Congress granted the Attorney General as “vast,” “free to impose his requirements as he wishes,” and “free to change his mind.”
These unconstrained powers are the essence of Chevron and of the major decisions doctrine being rectified by the Roberts Court. The Gundy dissent is a clear declaration by the new majority in SCOTUS that the Constitution demands Congress write laws and not delegate that authority to the Executive Branch.
Gundy was decided in 2018 exactly when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat was vacant and Justice Kavanaugh not yet confirmed. While voting affirmatively, Justice Alito wrote a one paragraph statement openly declaring support for the opportunity to review this issue in a new case with a full bench to reverse it.
Justice Gorsuch ended his dissent with:
“In a future case with a full panel, I remain hopeful that the Court may yet recognize that, while Congress can enlist considerable assistance from the executive branch in filling up details and finding facts, it may never hand off to the nation’s chief prosecutor the power to write his own criminal code. That “is delegation running riot.”107 “
A Loper win overturning Chevron would compel the need to revisit Gundy/SORNA with a strong case.
Kennedy was the absent justice, not Ginsburg.
This and the grant pass case (homelessness issue) which I think the homeless issue deals with status vs conduct crime in the 8th amendment terms which the registry is a status crime not conducted crime anyway,
This Chevron defense seems will be gutted https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
How will impact us going forward. Will congress now have to pass every law effecting us?
I think both will be of important interest to us as well as the “Department of state v. Munoz case which deals with which they will consider whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.”
“ The night circuit stands alone and conflict with several other circuit courts and holding that a US citizen has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the foreign national spouse in the United States” on page 15 https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023_WL_6390749-1.pdf
Since a lot of people’s question I have seen pertain about visa status for their spouse being denied this case could be of importance to.
It’s an atrocity of how Congress can allow itself to defecate and urinate all over the Constitution it claims to uphold when it deems necessary to do so.
There is a clear ‘elephant in the room’ violation of ‘Separation of Powers’ by allowing the attorney general to make his own laws and this makes me FURIOUS!!
It’s like Congress looking at a STOP sign and saying “It’s a good thing for the public, but for us it’s basically just a guideline.”
The last sentence is their primary motto about literally everything.
If it’s overturned, there would be some other mechanism put in place to ensure continuation of the oppression regime that is the registry. Outside of that, any government agency would be under scrutiny up to an including anything that protects consumers, any agency that may keep your food safe, environment, finances, etc. Basically, without regulatory agencies in place you’re going to see an entire civilized norms within the United States run amok. It will absolutely be the wild west. There must be some other mechanism by which to either abolish or reduce the registry to normal levels, whatever “normal” means.
I came across this article from a few years back that talks about the Chevron defense and Florida law. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-demise-of-agency-deference-florida-takes-the-lead/#u6d8d
Anyway apparently wedged between a victim crime rights and the increase in the age a judge could rule from the bench prop 6 amendment https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=11&seqnum=20
also had this in the bill on page 8.
SECTION 21. Judicial interpretation of statutes and rules.—
In interpreting a state statute or rule, a state court or an
officer hearing an administrative action pursuant to general law
may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of
such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or
rule de novo. https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/11-20.pdf
So maybe when the supreme court guts Chevron in June, maybe this could help us with our ex post facto case against Sorna.