Loper Bright and the Next Steps for Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2023
- This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo-a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron’s framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discussed the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.
Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
For the first lispy gentleman. His point was
A.) it doesn’t really matter, no-one is really using Chevron deference.
B.) and if we don’t have this deference that isn’t really used, do you really want the agencies to be micro managed by the courts?
I think what we would like is a case being heard on the individual merits in light of the law and facts at hand, not some nebulous every changing regulatory burden on Americans. The executive should as congress to add to or clarify the statute in law.
Are there examples of Congress revisiting a statute- amending it- when it doesn’t like how an agency has interpreted the law it wrote?
Not sure I will make it through the entire discussion… Just curious if they bother to discuss the Skidmore deference; which in the context of administrative law, is a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions that applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning.
K, now that I ranted, sorry, i don't firmly believe agencies are experts over industry. To draw a line of action only after action and not predictive stats drawn on flawed data would be wise of agencies.
Speaking of child welfare, abuse is not abuse at all. Its maltreatment which too is based on stats using evidence based (cases yr b4 conclusions from deference)
This was so interesting, totally heard ASU and said this is going to be an argument from the left. Hoped I was wrong, but wasn’t. Having your panel obviously reading directly from written items, disappointing.”chevron is your friend not your enemy”…thought this discussion was going to be based on legal discussions, not a professors ideals. “There was a case, I can’t remember what it was”…embarrassing for FS.
I do not agree with the first speaker at all. But I think the FedSoc provides us an impartial opportunity to hear different views. I am excited to hear the challenges from the other side and as a conservative law student, I find this pushes me to form a counter argument to my opposing side’s view.
BTW flaw in dcss interpretation of federal limits of amount seized. Fed verbage states substantial due process not substantive. Sacramento fabricated service to deny my motion, yes have foia proving that
Major question is, can Congress delegate a power they themselves dont have
CHEVRON DEFERENCE!!!!😲
Also love the diversity of this group - all white dudes - just like the founding fathers wanted!
Begley- Stop bouncing.