The 6 to 3 vote broke along ideological lines.
www.nytimes.com
The foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10956024

This is what the decision by the Republican justices to allow “gratuities” for public officials creates an incentive for.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Supporters of the doctrine say it allows specialized agencies to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in their areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress.

    They also say agencies’ interpretations can change with new administrations and put a thumb on the scale in favor of the government in lawsuits even when it is a party to the case.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused from the first case because she had participated in it as a federal appeals court judge.

    Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.

    The fishermen were represented by Cause of Action Institute, which says its mission is “to limit the power of the administrative state,” and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which says it aims “to protect constitutional freedoms from violations from the administrative state.” Both groups have financial ties to the network of foundations and advocacy organizations funded by Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes.

    Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives.

    The original article contains 567 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!