Chevron Deference, Explained

On this episode: Last month on January 17th, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in a cases that deals with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) interpretation of a federal fishery law. The court’s ruling, one of the most anticipated in 2024, could affect future applications of Chevron deference.
Chief policy editor Caitlin Styrsky joins the show to unpack Chevron Deference’s history, how the doctrine works, the arguments for and against keeping it around, and what its future might look like after SCOTUS’s likely decision later this year.
An in-depth guide: ballotpedia.org/Chevron_defer...
Our Learning Journey: ballotpedia.org/Journey:_Chev...
SCOTUS might release a related decision in June: news.ballotpedia.org/2024/01/...
Sign up for our Newsletters: ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_E...
Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at [e-mail] or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.
*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.
#chevrondeference #politicsnews #ballotpedia #nonpartisan #unbiasednews
Ballotpedia is the digital encyclopedia of American politics, and the nation’s premier resource for unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy.

[@thebusdrrivertohell]

I look forward to the coping and seething from the elected over having to do their jobs.

[@SeanDawson-m6r]

Terrified after todays ruling.

[@faw6103]

Lol why?

[@randytusha1]

I can see both sides of the argument, however I am more in favor of keeping the power in the hands of judges.
This way if an individual judge, makes a bad ruling it affects a single case. Where is allowing agencies to make a bad ruling affects literally everyone affected by that agency. And under the Chevron paradigm it basically institutionalized, bad ideas. Chevron's current application basically is the closest thing we have to systemic, problems in the government.
Taking away that power, opens up every agency to be sued by every person that disagrees with them, and we'll make the agencies less likely, to impose unreasonable rules because they'll have to constantly defend them in court.

[@tritchie6272]

With the courts deciding at least we have a third and hopefully neutral party deciding. I look at Chevron like this, you wouldn't give somebody a blank check with permission or immunity to write themselves a check for A's much as they want. That would be a conflict of interest.