{"id":330704,"date":"2024-05-31T11:47:35","date_gmt":"2024-05-31T09:47:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330704"},"modified":"2024-05-31T11:47:38","modified_gmt":"2024-05-31T09:47:38","slug":"who-gets-to-say-what-the-rules-are","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330704","title":{"rendered":"Who Gets To Say What the Rules Are?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Dan Greenberg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

May 25, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who gets to make the rules in American government? One of the most controversial and important cases before the Supreme Court concerns that crucial question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress makes the rules for the federal government in the form of laws. But federal agencies must enforce the law and often must make rules of their own \u2013 regulations \u2013 to do so. And courts then sometimes must resolve disputes about whether an agency\u2019s regulations are well-grounded in the statutes that Congress produces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tried to make things less confusing by setting some ground rules about who gets to make the rules. The Supreme Court decided to create a rule about rules: It said that if an agency\u2019s rule produced a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute passed by Congress, then courts should defer to the agency. In other words: If an agency\u2019s rule is challenged in court, then a court decides whether the agency\u2019s rule makes for a reasonable interpretation of the statute. If the court decides that the agency\u2019s rule is reasonable, then the agency\u2019s rule \u2013 even when challenged in court \u2013 always wins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the architects of the Chevron<\/a> <\/em>principle thought this was a good way to reduce conflict between various parts of the government. Unfortunately, that solution created a new problem: an avalanche of new federal rulemaking that is increasingly difficult for citizens to challenge in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics of the Chevron <\/em>principle \u2013 including several justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court \u2013 have noted that it appears to have a strange and disturbing consequence: Namely, in some circumstances it is agencies, not courts, that have the final word when interpreting the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/a> <\/em>case, a lawsuit that unavoidably put the Chevron <\/em>principle in the spotlight. The Loper Bright <\/em>parties challenged a rule that requires professional fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers who are required to tag along aboard commercial fishing boats. It is not hard to see why the lawsuit was brought: Imagine if, one day, some federal bureaucrat told you that, from now on, not only is there going to be a new person at your workplace who will monitor you to ensure that you\u2019re doing your job correctly, but you\u2019re also going to have to pay his salary! (CEI submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in this case.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no statute that expressly requires fishermen to pay for their own federal monitors. Nonetheless, the agency\u2019s regulation (that is supposed to be based on the statute) requires this payment. Whatever is going on here, it looks like the agency isn\u2019t interpreting anything; instead, it looks like the agency is serving as an additional legislature. In short, this case is about two questions: first, whether the regulation genuinely springs from the statute and, second, whether Chevron <\/em>prevents the court from looking at the first question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who observed the oral argument for Loper Bright <\/em>a few months ago have good reason to believe that Chevron <\/em>is in the court\u2019s crosshairs. At the argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that Chevron <\/em>\u201cushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in,\u201d bringing \u201cmassive change\u201d to regulations regularly. That\u2019s because there are plenty of agencies that take their cues from whoever is president and implement policies that they believe the boss will like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Neil Gorsuch then noted that Chevron <\/em>also allows agencies to inject institutional self-interest into their own regulations. For instance, when agencies must deal with veterans\u2019 benefits or Social Security claimants, Chevron <\/em>encourages agencies to make rules that benefit those agencies but operate to the detriment of \u201cthe little guy\u201d \u2013 because there is a danger that the agency will interpret the statute in a way that makes it as easy as possible to administer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of the oral argument, one of the lawyers before the court suggested that the Chevron <\/em>rule could not be limited or modified; rather, he said, the court should \u201crecognize that the fundamental problem is Chevron <\/em>itself.\u201d It\u2019s a good bet that in the coming weeks the majority of justices will agree \u2013 and decide that it\u2019s time once again to let the courts exercise their traditional function of interpreting the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Editor\u2019s Note: Should Chevron be struck down, the implications for the EPA, DOE, a host of other agencies, and the climate agenda of the Biden administration will be enormous. Hundreds if not thousands of regulations and programs will be in jeopardy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Who gets to make the rules in American government? One of the most controversial and important cases before the Supreme Court concerns that crucial question<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":330706,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691828894,691828895,691818670],"class_list":["post-330704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-american-government","tag-chevron-principle","tag-supreme-court","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-677.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1o1W","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":283477,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283477","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":0},"title":"The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s Reality Check on Trudeau\u2019s Climate Impact Act","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/16\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Canada-Court-Chaimber Canada\u2019s natural resources industries won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada. Alberta_Oil_Industry_Facts From Watts Up With That? In a recent ruling that sent shockwaves through the corridors of Canadian power, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a blow to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau\u2019s environmental aspirations. The court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Canada\"","block_context":{"text":"Canada","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=canada"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253570,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253570","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":1},"title":"More Federal Climate Lawfare","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Federal courts would undoubtedly reject these claims, which is why activists are fighting to keep their claims in front of their favorite state courts.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259288,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259288","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":2},"title":"Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Delivers Blow To Biden\u2019s WOTUS Regs","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a ruling narrowing the federal government\u2019s authority to regulate bodies of water and effectively\u00a0upending a Biden administration policy\u00a0that recently went into effect.","rel":"","context":"In \"EPA\"","block_context":{"text":"EPA","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0The-Supreme-Court-Delivered-a-Huge-Blow-to-Joe-Biden-That-Left-Him-Stunned-e1621627803828.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0The-Supreme-Court-Delivered-a-Huge-Blow-to-Joe-Biden-That-Left-Him-Stunned-e1621627803828.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0The-Supreme-Court-Delivered-a-Huge-Blow-to-Joe-Biden-That-Left-Him-Stunned-e1621627803828.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0The-Supreme-Court-Delivered-a-Huge-Blow-to-Joe-Biden-That-Left-Him-Stunned-e1621627803828.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0The-Supreme-Court-Delivered-a-Huge-Blow-to-Joe-Biden-That-Left-Him-Stunned-e1621627803828.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":432871,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=432871","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS to Hear Colorado Climate Case, What\u2019s at\u00a0Stake","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/21\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the City and County of Boulder\u2019s climate lawsuit against two major energy companies. This offers the first real opportunity to rein in the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign that has sought to force policy outcomes through the courts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Carbon Tax\"","block_context":{"text":"Carbon Tax","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-tax"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250956,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250956","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court rules in favor of landowners in major property rights case","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a victory for property rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court March 28 ruled that two Montana landowners can continue their legal battle against the U.S. Forest Service for allegedly changing the terms of a 1962 easement over access to a road that runs through their property near the Bitterroot\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/image-98.png?fit=1200%2C805&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/image-98.png?fit=1200%2C805&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/image-98.png?fit=1200%2C805&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/image-98.png?fit=1200%2C805&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/image-98.png?fit=1200%2C805&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255305,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255305","url_meta":{"origin":330704,"position":5},"title":"No Supreme Ruling on Deadbeat Cities\u2018 Climate Lawsuits","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/29\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The United State\u00a0Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a lawsuit\u00a0Boulder and two other local governments filed against oil refiners Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil and deemed similar climate change-related lawsuits matters for state courts.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330704","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=330704"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330704\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":330707,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330704\/revisions\/330707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/330706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=330704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=330704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=330704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}