The U.S. Supreme Court is considering overruling the Chevron precedent, a 40-year-old legal doctrine that grants federal agencies broad leeway to interpret laws, during the Loper arguments. Conservative justices showed readiness to challenge this precedent in a session that went over its scheduled time on Wednesday. The potential overruling could curtail the regulatory powers of federal agencies across numerous industries. The case's implications are significant, with debates arising on how Congress might better legislate to maintain effective oversight and balance of power.
In Loper arguments, Kavanaugh suggested the danger of the Chevron precedent is “aggressive assertions of unilateral executive power.” Excuse me? Congressional Review Act? Appropriations process? Legislative committee oversight? Even impeachment? Oh, and judicial review under APA.
"The case is about whether the conservative-dominated court is prepared to throw overboard a 40-year-old precedent that instructs federal judges to defer to administrative agencies in interpreting the laws they enforce," @RuthMarcus writes. https://t.co/iryjQffIxP
Conservatives don't want to hear it, @mattyglesias says, but the way to rein in the power of federal agencies is to give Congress more resources so it can write better laws https://t.co/xzIb6kQLF3 via @opinion
Supreme Court to decide on far-reaching doctrine that gives administrative agencies wide power In hearing oral arguments Wednesday, Justices went far beyond the hour-long time slot allotted for case, which has far-reaching impact. Read more ⬇️ https://t.co/eNY5fk6BBM
Some conservative Supreme Court justices signaled Wednesday they are ready to overrule a legal doctrine that gives federal agencies leeway to interpret laws, a decision that could rein in the power regulators have to intervene in many industries. https://t.co/iuMCYmafCw