Nine lower-court rulings were vacated by the Supreme Court and sent back to be reconsidered in light of Friday's decision reversing the decades-old Chevron doctrine that said judges should defer to agencies to interpret laws they administer.
The cases were the first of what is expected to be a wave of rulings reassessing the power of federal regulators, who make rules covering everything from food and drugs to airlines and drinking water.
"This is going to have a widespread effect that we're going to be feeling for the months and years to come," said Loren Seehase, senior counsel at conservative legal group Liberty Justice Center.
The cases that were returned on Tuesday to lower courts of appeals included a 13-year dispute between South Dakota farmer Arlen Foster and Department of Agriculture regulators who concluded that an eight-inch pool of water on his property was a protected wetland.
Foster's case turned in part on the interpretation of the Swampbuster Act and the deference given to regulators by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis last year.
“Our clients may now make their case in court without judges putting their thumb on the scale in favor of the government,” said Paige Gilliard, an attorney for Foster at the Pacific Legal Foundation...more
6 comments:
And then, when the regulations that help farmers and ranchers are overturned, they’re gonna cry foul.
I'm trying to understand your comment. Do you support the court's decision or not? The Chevron deference affected everyone subject to regulation.
Hi Frank. I do not support the court’s decision. The way I understand it judges will become the experts. So if you have a range specialist who says the grazing utilization on an allotment is adequate to allow for critter cover the judge could disagree and rule in favor of the NGO who wants a lower utilization percentage.
My point on regulations being overturned is that anytime somebody thinks that something is gonna go against them they cry foul. I grew up on a ranch in New Mexico and saw it go both ways when I was a youngster.
Anonymous said...
"Hi Frank. I do not support the court’s decision. The way I understand it judges will become the experts. So if you have a range specialist who says the grazing utilization on an allotment is adequate to allow for critter cover the judge could disagree and rule in favor of the NGO who wants a lower utilization percentage."
I don’t believe that is a correct interpretation of the decision. The decision has to do with is the agency authorized by law to issue the regulation, and if so, does the language in the regulation comply with the law.
The issue you describe, the collection and interpretation of data, is not affected – one way or the other – by this decision.
Ok. Thank you for the info Frank.
Post a Comment