Why is the Chevron Doctrine Still Controversial? [No. 86]

Why do scholars and judges still debate the utility and validity of the Chevron doctrine, more than 30 years after it was proposed?
Professor Gary Lawson explains that the controversy involves serious questions about the role of agencies and their power to pass regulations, as well as questions about the proper role of jurisprudence in administrative law cases.
Professor Gary Lawson is the Philip S. Beck Professor at Boston University School of Law.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
• Administrative Law [Co...

[@tyson211]

Chevron’s made judges lazy and they’re too quick to defer to agencies. But I’m not sure I want judges interpreting statutes to suit their own agendas either. I think if a statute is ambiguous it should go back to Congress and force them to take responsibility since they are accountable to the people.

[@Mrjonnyjonjon123]

You know what? You're right. Absolutely no carbon can be polluted ever. If your corporation pollutes carbon, you go to jail.
Clear enough? Or we could just let the experts be experts and judge accordingly

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

@@Mrjonnyjonjon123 So you don’t really care about how the law works, you just want a specific outcome regardless of how we get there.

[@dingusfartacus9624]

@@Mrjonnyjonjon123 boohoo tough cheeks

[@mavrikmavrik3032]

The courts aren’t policy makers, they should be objectively determining if the rules/regulations that the agencies are creating fall within the laws and mandates created by congress. The judicial branch is the check on the executive branch in this regard and is the protector of our laws and constitution. It should ALWAYS be the governments obligation to prove they are acting within the laws (as written) and the constitution.

[@JustinWalker951]

Thanks, now I'm more confused

[@Harlem55]

Courts have the sole authority to interpret the constitution and laws of the United States. Cf. US Const. Article 3 and Marburry v. Maddison. It therefore follows that agencies may not interpret, but rather only implement and enforce such that we ensure that the agency never adds additional substance beyond the statute interpreted consistent with the common law. Where one branch of the government does not answer to both of the others in some respect, it is then a danger to the fundamental principles of a constititional democratic republic.

[@cajunguy8272]

Chevron deference doctrine needs to go

[@LoweredLine]

Boy do I have good news for you

[@StabbyMcStabwood]

I'll tell you the most important reason why. Agencies like the ATF are writing laws that infringe upon our constitutional rights.

[@StabbyMcStabwood]

@DaBishop1of1 you wouldn't like to be able to purchase a collection from a friend who lives in another state without all the red tape?

[@brandoncunningham7253]

It cuts both ways, example net neutrality is in danger when a judge with an agenda shows up

[@brandoncunningham7253]

​@@StabbyMcStabwood I definitely agree the atf has overstepped however the exception cant make the rule. It takes one judge with an agenda to fuck up all good faith policies. Look at what the judges do in nyc, even when prosecutor request bail many judges ignore it. This is a recipe for disaster

[@giagroenenberg]

How the Chevron Doctrine overruled last week by SCOTUS will impact IRS regulations? Example FbAR, FATCA etc.

[@user-dc6in6cf4w]

The question is to why these lawmakers leave gaps and ambiguity in these laws and policies, why aren’t they stopped or corrected before made into law ? Loopholes and dark areas are for the super powerful to have an edge on the game. So whats the answer ? Why are these pounts missed before they become written law.

[@williamgregory1848]

The Chevron deference consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies:
1.) Whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question
2.) Whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

[@phillipmiller1008]

We need to ABOLISH the Chevron Doctrine and the COURTS and Agencies at every level should adhere Solemnly to the LAWS Guidelines, Policies and Procedures that are Already in the BOOKS ... Period...
If a Law or Policy or Procedure needs to be CHANGED , then it goes to the House Floor for Review and a Vote , but only after the NEWLY FORMATTED AMENDMENT is clearly Outlined and Understood...

[@joshhawkins2765]

It was totally unworkable

[@givemethemusicd]

I must have missed a class. I thought there were only 3 branches of government. I missed the class on the legitimacy of agency bureaucracy being the 4th branch, and it having the same powers as the legislative branch in creating law. This is why the future of our country is circling the drain leading to the global sewer. What a shame. There is no good reason for it either, outside of hegemony and weak men/women.
Hard Times create strong men/women,
strong men/women create good times
Good times create a-holes.
a-holes create hard times...hopefully?

[@charlesjuett7445]

Here after the supreme court halted biden's Osha mandate

[@nobody687]

It makes perfect sense, judges can't rule on every agencies decisions. What your doing is trying to dismantle the government.

[@robertlloyd122]

I mean, that's been the Republican agenda for over 40 years.

[@TheBanshee90]

You would prefer the 3 letter agency get to decide what was legal today will be illegal tomorrow while the has been no new law passed by congress? What you want is a kangaroo court where the executive branch acts as not only judge jury and executioner but also gets to decide what the laws even are.

[@givemethemusicd]

Idiocracy

[@9879SigmundS]

Because it’s named after a big oil company?