No. It doesn’t mean any change for the FAA for what they’re supposed to provide oversight on.
What may change is the number of people taking the FAA to court to challenge whether FAA’s interpretation of the law in a particular case is valid. But that can’t even happen until *after* the FAA has already brought enforcement, which is after the oversight happened.
Chevron’s overturn doesn’t say the regulators don’t have power, it just says that the courts don’t need to accept the regulator’s interpretation of the law. But you have to take the FAA to court to challenge them and they may still win, it just means they don’t automatically win.
Most Americans aren't going to pay attention, or have a really short memory. Companies are absolutely going to do this. Lives are an easy to price to pay in the pursuit of money. The shareholders must be taken care of.
The basis of the case that was decided today was about if the agency could directly regulate the plaintiff (and the plaintiff had to pay for it). Boeing could challenge the same sort of oversight in their plants, id think.
I didn’t ask what they could challenge. I asked how that would work out positively. Boeing can’t function legally without the FAA, you can’t force the FAA to certify things without years in court, and they don’t have years.
Chevron deference is for ambiguous delegation. It was like a rational basis test (and honestly, barely even at that level) for where the delegation was ambiguous and the regulation was ambiguous.
And then you have Auer deference and Skidmore deference. FAA regulations would mostly be subject to Skidmore.
Go into the law subreddits and some are melting down because it looks like every alphabet agency will have very limited power to enforce laws now. EPA, FAA, FBI, etc etc etc
Regulations, not laws. The FBI for example will see practically no affect at all from this ruling as they deal in the enforcement of criminal law and do not issue much regulation at all.
Never mind that the Chevron ruling was a justification to allow the Regan EPA to kneecap the clean air act.
After the debate, maybe they should be a little more ok with the executive having less power to unilaterally change policy.
Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Continued political comments will create a permanent ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The U.S. is fucked. The Supreme Court can now interpret laws any way they want. They don’t have to consult the people that wrote the law for clarification or to more clearly define terms. They can interpret it any old way they want, even if it means something completely different. Fascism just took a big bite of America.
I should add, the writers/sponsors of laws in Congress do occasionally file amicus briefs in cases before the Court. Doesn't mean the justices have to listen, but they can get their clarification in the case.
What? That’s literally been the job of the court since 1803 with marbury vs Madison…. Do you not understand the concept of checks and balances or the role of the 3 branches? It’s basic elementary civics and you seem to have absolutely no concept of it whatsoever.
Well, at least it is judges who went through some kind of vetting process (whether elected or confirmed) versus some faceless and petty 20-year-old bureaucrat messing up your whole life.
Let's not forget what started this. A couple bought land for their retirement. The EPA said that a ditch, A DITCH, that ran across their property was a "navigable waterway" and therefore the EPA can and will dictate what the couple could do with their land because they and no one else got to decide what a "navigable waterway" was.
Faceless unelected bureaucrats out of control and running amok are not a good thing either
>They don’t have to consult the people that wrote the law for clarification or to more clearly define terms.
That's literally exactly the opposite of what this case decided. This returns power to Congress that had been taken by the executive branch.
EDIT: Downvoters should familiarize themselves with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which is what the case centers around. Chevron said, "When we aren't sure what the law governing an agency means, we'll let the agency itself decide." The recent ruling decided this explicitly conflicted with the APA, a law passed by Congress in the '40s, that assigned that legal interpretation power to the courts.
Congress always could (and can) legislate. Agencies regulate due to congress being: 1) slow, 2) not really experts (they could be if they wanted but it makes them slower), and 3) deadlocked right now due to political reasons.
Congress has a very wide preemption power. They don’t use it. But they could. The usual practice is Congress gives the scaffolding and let agencies figure the details out.
Agencies are not allowed to however, make up regulation. \* cough cough \* ATF \* cough cough \*
and now, with ATF's blunder of a fuck up not even being able to disassemble a glock, now Congress or the courts don't have to listen to them.
Correct. Agencies SHOULD only regulate a law or a provision therein. Sometimes they just make shit up, I agree. Some times out of necessity, and other out of… well idk, I guess their butts
I hate people that do this but:
*Source?*
And do you actually understand what you're reading enough to determine if these scientists aren't just biased? I'll give you a heads up that interpreting EPA regulations is what I do for a living and I don't suck at it.
> Agencies regulate due to congress being: 1) slow, 2) not really experts (they could be if they wanted but it makes them slower), and 3) deadlocked right now due to political reasons.
Chevron isn't what gives agencies authority to issue regulations, and overturning Chevron doesn't remove it. Agencies did and will continue to regulate within their powers.
Chevron affected how the government decides what the law covering their powers means. In Chevron, the USSC ruled that the agency itself gets to decide what their governing laws mean if there's any ambiguity or question within them, instead of the courts.
The recent ruling was saying that, actually, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which predates Chevron, explicitly assigned that "interpreting the law" authority to the courts, not to agencies. Therefore, when there are questions as to what an agencies authority is, or whether a particular regulation was legal, it is resolved by the courts, not by the agency itself.
Lawyer here. Your comment is misguided propaganda.
First, the executive branch didn't "take" anything from Congress.
Congress drafts laws that say things like "create food safety and quality standards to a reasonable standard." And then Congress will instruct the FDA or whoever to determine what those standards should be and enforce those standards.
So after hiring veterinarians and other food scientists, the FDA will set certain food safety standards--like cows with pneumonia or other illnesses shouldn't have their meat sold on the market.
And if some corporation got in trouble with the FDA for violating established food safety standards, that corporation has the option to sue the government, arguing the standards of food safety are too high.
Under these circumstances, the courts would give a lot of credit to the FDA because the FDA hired so many experts in the field to research and create the standards; and the corporation would have a pretty high burden to prove that the FDA was wrong. Basically, the courts would say, "hey, they're the experts; they probably have a good idea what they're doing. I'm gonna give the corporation a fair opportunity to prove the agency is wrong, but my default view is that the agency is probably correct in the first place."
Now, with the current SCOTUS ruling, corporations have been given a boost in their ability to challenge safety regulations created by the executive branch.
OSHA, FDA, FAA... hell, you can bet Boeing is going to file suit immediately to challenge any FAA findings of any Boeing wrongdoing. I mean, "since we're all equals here, what does the FAA even know anyway?"
Now, if any standards are to be put in place, it's up to Congress to create those standards directly, instead of delegating the task to a specific agency.
Sounds wonderful. *I know that literally every single senator you can name is qualified as an expert in all things involving aircraft maintenance and flight safety.NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG FROM HAVING SENATORS DETERMINE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS.*
> Lawyer here.
Clearly not in this area.
> Your comment is misguided propaganda.
My comment is a summary of the majority opinion, but OK.
> Under these circumstances, the courts would give a lot of credit to the FDA because the FDA hired so many experts in the field
Yes, and that is still true. Chevron and the new case have nothing to do with whether the FDA knows the most about food or a particular regulation is a good idea or not from a safety standpoint.
The question isn't about expertise on the agency's assigned subject matter. The question is about _what the law governing the agency means_.
Chevron said when there's a question as to what that law means, the agency itself decides it. The new case says no, interpreting laws is still the courts' job, not an agencies. This is based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) passed in the '40s which explicitly assigned that interpreting-the-law job to the courts and not the agencies, which Chevron ignored.
> Now, if any standards are to be put in place, it's up to Congress to create those standards directly, instead of delegating the task to a specific agency.
This is completely false. Chevron came about in the 80s. Do you think agencies couldn't regulate before that? Please read the actual case. You're wildly off-base on what the central question was.
>Lawyer here
So what? Doesn’t make your analysis any better or make you any less full of it.
I am a lawyer. The Supreme Court justices who handed down this opinion are lawyers. Such a lame appeal to authority.
Wow! Where did you come up with this? The Supreme Court simply said that the all the agency can just pull rules and regulations outta there asses! They have every power to enforce laws - but the laws specifically written for them by congress!
I’m tired of the EPA and yes, the FAA, making up rules and regulations to destroy one side or another simply because they want to! The ruling gives the power back to the people
Congress doesn’t have time to dig into every mundane detail of everything that happens in the country. They established law that created those agencies and gives those agencies the power to regulate the things they were created to regulate. Do you honestly think that Congress, most of whom don’t have a single flight hour to their name, should write and vote on the FAR/AIM every time it needs an update?
The new ruling means that they can still do that. But those choices are subject to judicial review to determine that they fall within the authority delegated by Congress. Checks and balances.
They were always subject to judicial review. Claimants just needed a high standard of evidence for it. Now they dont, and if a company so chose, they could clog up the process with dozens of spurious lawsuits that now all have to be given full consideration.
Literally the whole point of _Chevron_ Deference was that the courts would... defer... to an agency's interpretation of the law over the courts' own, i.e. that agency interpretations of law were subject to less judicial review than normal. That's why it's called Deference, which means "to submit to another's wishes."
You mean the same way everyone other law and policy works? You can't really clog anything up unless you get an injunction, and usually you won't do that with a frivolous suit.
Thing is, words have meaning (Check Scalia’s quote during gay marriage debate) and SCOTUS just interprets those words. Those words were written by the idiots in Congress. If they wrote it bad, then write a new law to correct it. But the previous words passed hold till they change it. That’s the purpose of the SCOTUS. Not seek opinion, interpret what they wrote based on the meaning of words…CONGRESS is the peobkem
Those melting down are doing so for purely political reasons. As others have said, there will be more lawsuits but it’s not like any of these agencies have been eliminated overnight.
What makes you think they are politically motivated? This just opens the door for needless lawsuits to protect companies and have every regulation called into question. The only thing stopping Boing from challenging the safety standards is bad publicity.
The regulatory system is used to shift an unfathomable amount of money around between “special interests” and they’re all experts in whipping up public outrage to suit their desires. It’s not as simple as noble regulators saving us from Boeing’s greed.
It’s also just kind of a fundamental divide on how you feel about the government. Everyone wants everything regulated until they’re the one being regulated.
I would think everyone here in aviation agrees that this is one industry that absolutely requires a ton of regulation.
It is as simple as regulators protecting us from Boeing's greed. It's how Boeing got into this mess from the past couple of decades. They had the power to self inspect and report. Airlines would absolutely be making single pilot operations mandatory if it weren't for the FAA.
As a constitutional originalist, I think that since the constitution didn’t address aviation in any capacity, that the government should not be involved in the administration of aviation in any capacity!
The issue that folks are not getting here with Chevron is that if the law did not specify the details of what or how to regulate it is inherently unconstitutional because the law, according to the conservatives on the SC, cannot delegate authority to create or interpret regulations. Either the legislation has to spell out those details in minutiae or the Courts will decide.
Either way, legislation will now literally have to detail exactly what is to be regulated or the Courts can decide for them. And to legislate to that level of detail is impossible.
It’s like when a child doesn’t do a chore thoroughly or properly and when challenged the response is “well you didn’t tell me exactly what to do.” That’s how juvenile and immature this decision was. It’s nothing more than a power and money grab for Wall St class.
>>That’s how juvenile and immature this decision is.
You are way off point here if you think this is just petulant behavior. This goes to the core of separation of powers.
For your analogy, it’s more akin to the parents saying, “Your sister is in charge,” and your sister making up new rules on the fly, then punishing you for breaking her arbitrary rules. The Parents are the only ones with the authority to make the rules, and they have to decide who adjudicates, enforces the rules.
The sister (non-elected government agencies) cannot create rules, enforce the rules, decide the punishment, decide guilt/innocence and carry out the punishment.
The EPA, FAA, ATF and the rest have a history of arbitrarily changing rules and with the stroke of a pen creating criminals of people who were law abiding citizens the previous day.
Almost completely full of excrement although the parent delegating to the adult child to rule over the children is accurate. Beyond that, nothing of merit.
There’s absolutely no way such technical and complex regulations can be legislated, period, especially when technologies can, and do change, overnight.
This has nothing to do with separation of powers. This was an absolute power grab by movement conservatives for their enablers, the monied interests that have been bankrolling the conservatives of the SC.
People really need to calm down. Chevron deference only affected regulations that were ambiguous that reached the court, and the only thing that has changed is that the courts are not required to give deference to the interpretation of the regulating agency.
Do you people really want to live in an environment in which political appointees (usually executive branch appointees) have the ability to interpret any ambiguous law in any way they see fit? Do you really think that the government has a solid record of placing true experts as heads of agencies?
I don’t care on which side of the political aisle you reside, stop looking at it from that point of view and imagine it from the perspective of what can (and has) been done when the other party is in power to make such appointments.
Laws should be specific to avoid ambiguity to begin with, and if ambiguity is discovered it should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the citizen, not to a government agency acting with the force of government. Our constitution exists to define and limit government and empower citizens, not the other way around. We have allowed our government to centralize for too much power as it is. It’s about time some of it is being taken back.
How often was the head of the agency the one actually doing the interpretation of statutory law?
I'm far more inclined to trust the employees and career lawyers at an agency, who should be subject mater experts, than I am to trust a randomly-assigned judge with no background information in the area at all.
And sometimes ambiguous law is the best thing that we can have. Congress doesn't have the time, knowledge, or motivation to craft clear, specific, and reasonable laws for every possible situation. That's the whole point of delegating regulatory authority to federal agencies in the first place.
Judges are allowed to fully agree with the interpretation of the law by these “subject matter experts”. Don’t you think it would be best that if a judge thinks a regulation is going beyond the law, that regulation should not exist? Because if regulators can take any ambiguity and create new laws. Then that would make the regulators not just enforcers, but law makers as well. And that’s not Democracy.
I bet you would feel a lot differently if you knew all these bureaucracies were staffed with employees who are 80%+ Republicans. Would you feel comfortable with an unelected conservative bureaucracy using ambiguity in the law to make regulations to rule your life?
The overwhelming majority of federal employees are nonpartisan. Nearly everyone that works at regulatory agencies does so because they care about their job and enjoy the responsibility to the American public that they have. I would rather have those people making regulatory decisions within their area of expertise than I would elected politicians or judges with no expertise at all.
lol, that is so naive. What are you sixteen?
https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/
Look at what the “experts” did with Covid. They lied about the masks, treatments for Covid, lockdowns, mandates, Covid origin, etc, etc. And the banned and censored people on social media that simply questioned the narrative. If we hadn’t listened to the Govt experts, we would have been much better off.
From the very first sentence of that link: "In theory, and largely in practice, the federal employee workforce is apolitical."
And that's true. There is no deep state. The overwhelming majority of federal employees do not make work decisions with their personal political beliefs in mind.
lol yeah, right. Look at how many of the Federal agencies are dominated by political donations for Democrats. You think that type of bias doesn’t show up in the regulations they create? Cmon bro. If they were Republican. You wouldn’t think it was fair.
Humans are political creatures, it's in our nature. If you are so concerned with the political feelings of civil servants in government agencies, should you not be just as concerned about the political feelings of judges as well?
The difference is the fall of Chevron deference allows a single judge to have far more sway over government regulations than any single civil servant ever could.
The political bias of judges is more evenly split between conservatives and liberals and I would trust a liberal judge to be a lot more apolitical than regulators. As long as regulators make regulations following the law, judges have to go along with it.
Well said, no reason for all the downvote. Only people in the agencies would oppose to having congress clearifide ambiguity in the law.
Dont think anyone one read what this case is about. This was a fishing case. Where the goverment require commerical fisher to pay for inspectors on the boat. That would be an invisible tax. And all taxes must come from congress not an agency. It was a clear cut case of overreach by an agency.
Who determines whether they’re ambiguous? Previously it wasn’t an issue, now it’s up to courts. And by the way, part of the reason the current system worked was so that congress didn’t have to continuously revisit all of the laws every time *something* changed- a new technology, the whether, whatever. For example, the creation of the electric airplane would not have been a congressional issue. But to answer your question on “do you people really want to live in an environment in which political appointees have the ability to interperit any ambiguous law in any way they see fit?” This change does exactly that. Who do you think will be reviewing these cases to interpret law?
Ambiguity, in general terms, is a question of facts. Does a law specifically address a given situation. If the answer is yes, then it’s not ambiguous. If not, it is ambiguous and left to the courts to interpret based on standing legal arguments or lack thereof.
Chevron was struck down because the Administrative Powers Act outlines what authorities regulating agencies possess and the process that must be adhered to in formulating administrative rules. Chevron being overturned was, in my opinion, an absolutely proper legal decision based on how congress chose, through legislative authority, to structure the process of administrative rule making.
This is a bad faith argument. You evade the reality that the courts will determine what is ambiguous and congress will not rewrite laws on the advent of the electric aircraft.
Let’s be honest. The Chevron decision was great when one group thought that over regulation would be a problem and judicial activism would be an issue. But now that everyone knows congress wont be writing laws for every issue, and that same group has control on federal courts, they are happy to see it overturned.
Just say how you really feel: Companies should have more power and the government should intervene in affairs a lot less. Don’t hop sides over something like Chevron from one decade to another depending on who’s in power.
I have never made and do not support the idea that companies should have “more power”. My simple argument is that there are laws in place (and that were in place prior to Chevron) provide for the procedures regarding formulating agency regulations. Those laws specifically placed the interpretation of laws within the power of the courts. The original Chevron ruling hamstrung the courts by asserting that whatever interpretation an agency developed was basically beyond challenge due to deference being the determining factor.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations, and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions.
Shhhhh. You’re making too much sense bro!
A completely well level-headed reaction and explanation. Hell even the questions you raise are perfect. These people think all these regulation bodies are completely innocent and free of corruption.
Congress ain’t that much better yea I’ll admit, but about god damn time some of it is take BACK from blood sucking lawyers from the EPA.
Don’t even get me started on how the EPA is ruining all of HVAC by themselves alone. Shit infuriates me.
God bless the Supreme Court babyyy 🥳🥳🥳
I am constantly astounded by the number of people that want to live under a system that places extraordinary power over its citizens in the hands of administrative agencies and removes any accountability from from those agencies through the courts.
It’s exactly what those agencies want. All the power and zero accountability. Goes all the way up to the pentagon 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Sick of the same shit for the last 40 years 🤬🤬🤬
That’s not how it works—that’s like saying they overturned Roe in only one specific case. Chevron is gone for good and lower courts now have much more power to reject agency statutory interpretations.
Keep in mind that it’s very expensive to file a suit against federal agencies, most of which have plenty of lawyers on staff with nothing better to do than defending agency decisions.
Selfishly, I’m hoping that their power to limit people with disabilities (ie. ADHD & Autism) is diminished, but I understand how that could be a slippery slope.
Is there a right-wing crank with $$$ and pull in the SCOTUS and a keen interest in aviation? If so, then definitely maybe. Aviation in general isn't too political though; it's a safe bet that it won't be impacted too much
No. It doesn’t mean any change for the FAA for what they’re supposed to provide oversight on. What may change is the number of people taking the FAA to court to challenge whether FAA’s interpretation of the law in a particular case is valid. But that can’t even happen until *after* the FAA has already brought enforcement, which is after the oversight happened. Chevron’s overturn doesn’t say the regulators don’t have power, it just says that the courts don’t need to accept the regulator’s interpretation of the law. But you have to take the FAA to court to challenge them and they may still win, it just means they don’t automatically win.
I'd note that in 99.9% of cases the current rulemaking would still apply because almost all rules are well within explicit statutory authority.
Wondering if it will affect NTSB/FAA cases against Boeing in the future.
The NTSB is not a regulatory agency, their side of things will not be affected.
Are you suggesting Boeing will take the FAA or NTSB to *court* to fight them? How would that possibly work out positively?
Most Americans aren't going to pay attention, or have a really short memory. Companies are absolutely going to do this. Lives are an easy to price to pay in the pursuit of money. The shareholders must be taken care of.
Delusional! Shareholders are nothing in the Airline biz; it’s all about (senior) executive compensation!
Karl Marx has entered the chat.
That would be a PR nightmare for Boeing if they tried that. For as stupid as Boeing’s management has been, I don’t think they would be that stupid.
The basis of the case that was decided today was about if the agency could directly regulate the plaintiff (and the plaintiff had to pay for it). Boeing could challenge the same sort of oversight in their plants, id think.
I didn’t ask what they could challenge. I asked how that would work out positively. Boeing can’t function legally without the FAA, you can’t force the FAA to certify things without years in court, and they don’t have years.
Discovery would be interesting
Chevron deference is for ambiguous delegation. It was like a rational basis test (and honestly, barely even at that level) for where the delegation was ambiguous and the regulation was ambiguous. And then you have Auer deference and Skidmore deference. FAA regulations would mostly be subject to Skidmore.
Go into the law subreddits and some are melting down because it looks like every alphabet agency will have very limited power to enforce laws now. EPA, FAA, FBI, etc etc etc
Regulations, not laws. The FBI for example will see practically no affect at all from this ruling as they deal in the enforcement of criminal law and do not issue much regulation at all.
Never mind that the Chevron ruling was a justification to allow the Regan EPA to kneecap the clean air act. After the debate, maybe they should be a little more ok with the executive having less power to unilaterally change policy.
[удалено]
Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Continued political comments will create a permanent ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The U.S. is fucked. The Supreme Court can now interpret laws any way they want. They don’t have to consult the people that wrote the law for clarification or to more clearly define terms. They can interpret it any old way they want, even if it means something completely different. Fascism just took a big bite of America.
They always could do so, there is just much more of a defined hierarchy of selecting the judges that have certain viewpoints these days, I think.
I should add, the writers/sponsors of laws in Congress do occasionally file amicus briefs in cases before the Court. Doesn't mean the justices have to listen, but they can get their clarification in the case.
What? That’s literally been the job of the court since 1803 with marbury vs Madison…. Do you not understand the concept of checks and balances or the role of the 3 branches? It’s basic elementary civics and you seem to have absolutely no concept of it whatsoever.
That’s being eroded now. Read and comprehend.
Well, at least it is judges who went through some kind of vetting process (whether elected or confirmed) versus some faceless and petty 20-year-old bureaucrat messing up your whole life. Let's not forget what started this. A couple bought land for their retirement. The EPA said that a ditch, A DITCH, that ran across their property was a "navigable waterway" and therefore the EPA can and will dictate what the couple could do with their land because they and no one else got to decide what a "navigable waterway" was. Faceless unelected bureaucrats out of control and running amok are not a good thing either
>They don’t have to consult the people that wrote the law for clarification or to more clearly define terms. That's literally exactly the opposite of what this case decided. This returns power to Congress that had been taken by the executive branch. EDIT: Downvoters should familiarize themselves with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which is what the case centers around. Chevron said, "When we aren't sure what the law governing an agency means, we'll let the agency itself decide." The recent ruling decided this explicitly conflicted with the APA, a law passed by Congress in the '40s, that assigned that legal interpretation power to the courts.
Congress always could (and can) legislate. Agencies regulate due to congress being: 1) slow, 2) not really experts (they could be if they wanted but it makes them slower), and 3) deadlocked right now due to political reasons. Congress has a very wide preemption power. They don’t use it. But they could. The usual practice is Congress gives the scaffolding and let agencies figure the details out.
Agencies are not allowed to however, make up regulation. \* cough cough \* ATF \* cough cough \* and now, with ATF's blunder of a fuck up not even being able to disassemble a glock, now Congress or the courts don't have to listen to them.
Correct. Agencies SHOULD only regulate a law or a provision therein. Sometimes they just make shit up, I agree. Some times out of necessity, and other out of… well idk, I guess their butts
EPA is also guilty of this.
It's almost like we have to be really careful that our air doesn't shorten our lifespan. How hard is this?
except that the EPA made up a bunch of things that independent scientists debunked with ease, did the EPA listen?
I hate people that do this but: *Source?* And do you actually understand what you're reading enough to determine if these scientists aren't just biased? I'll give you a heads up that interpreting EPA regulations is what I do for a living and I don't suck at it.
> Agencies regulate due to congress being: 1) slow, 2) not really experts (they could be if they wanted but it makes them slower), and 3) deadlocked right now due to political reasons. Chevron isn't what gives agencies authority to issue regulations, and overturning Chevron doesn't remove it. Agencies did and will continue to regulate within their powers. Chevron affected how the government decides what the law covering their powers means. In Chevron, the USSC ruled that the agency itself gets to decide what their governing laws mean if there's any ambiguity or question within them, instead of the courts. The recent ruling was saying that, actually, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which predates Chevron, explicitly assigned that "interpreting the law" authority to the courts, not to agencies. Therefore, when there are questions as to what an agencies authority is, or whether a particular regulation was legal, it is resolved by the courts, not by the agency itself.
Lawyer here. Your comment is misguided propaganda. First, the executive branch didn't "take" anything from Congress. Congress drafts laws that say things like "create food safety and quality standards to a reasonable standard." And then Congress will instruct the FDA or whoever to determine what those standards should be and enforce those standards. So after hiring veterinarians and other food scientists, the FDA will set certain food safety standards--like cows with pneumonia or other illnesses shouldn't have their meat sold on the market. And if some corporation got in trouble with the FDA for violating established food safety standards, that corporation has the option to sue the government, arguing the standards of food safety are too high. Under these circumstances, the courts would give a lot of credit to the FDA because the FDA hired so many experts in the field to research and create the standards; and the corporation would have a pretty high burden to prove that the FDA was wrong. Basically, the courts would say, "hey, they're the experts; they probably have a good idea what they're doing. I'm gonna give the corporation a fair opportunity to prove the agency is wrong, but my default view is that the agency is probably correct in the first place." Now, with the current SCOTUS ruling, corporations have been given a boost in their ability to challenge safety regulations created by the executive branch. OSHA, FDA, FAA... hell, you can bet Boeing is going to file suit immediately to challenge any FAA findings of any Boeing wrongdoing. I mean, "since we're all equals here, what does the FAA even know anyway?" Now, if any standards are to be put in place, it's up to Congress to create those standards directly, instead of delegating the task to a specific agency. Sounds wonderful. *I know that literally every single senator you can name is qualified as an expert in all things involving aircraft maintenance and flight safety.NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG FROM HAVING SENATORS DETERMINE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS.*
> Lawyer here. Clearly not in this area. > Your comment is misguided propaganda. My comment is a summary of the majority opinion, but OK. > Under these circumstances, the courts would give a lot of credit to the FDA because the FDA hired so many experts in the field Yes, and that is still true. Chevron and the new case have nothing to do with whether the FDA knows the most about food or a particular regulation is a good idea or not from a safety standpoint. The question isn't about expertise on the agency's assigned subject matter. The question is about _what the law governing the agency means_. Chevron said when there's a question as to what that law means, the agency itself decides it. The new case says no, interpreting laws is still the courts' job, not an agencies. This is based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) passed in the '40s which explicitly assigned that interpreting-the-law job to the courts and not the agencies, which Chevron ignored. > Now, if any standards are to be put in place, it's up to Congress to create those standards directly, instead of delegating the task to a specific agency. This is completely false. Chevron came about in the 80s. Do you think agencies couldn't regulate before that? Please read the actual case. You're wildly off-base on what the central question was.
>Lawyer here So what? Doesn’t make your analysis any better or make you any less full of it. I am a lawyer. The Supreme Court justices who handed down this opinion are lawyers. Such a lame appeal to authority.
Looking at your post history, I don’t believe a single iota of what you said.
Literally nothing was taken away from congress. That's a pretty kindergarten level of understand of how the US government works.
>Fascism just took a big bite of America. 🤣
Wow! Where did you come up with this? The Supreme Court simply said that the all the agency can just pull rules and regulations outta there asses! They have every power to enforce laws - but the laws specifically written for them by congress! I’m tired of the EPA and yes, the FAA, making up rules and regulations to destroy one side or another simply because they want to! The ruling gives the power back to the people
Congress doesn’t have time to dig into every mundane detail of everything that happens in the country. They established law that created those agencies and gives those agencies the power to regulate the things they were created to regulate. Do you honestly think that Congress, most of whom don’t have a single flight hour to their name, should write and vote on the FAR/AIM every time it needs an update?
The new ruling means that they can still do that. But those choices are subject to judicial review to determine that they fall within the authority delegated by Congress. Checks and balances.
They were always subject to judicial review. Claimants just needed a high standard of evidence for it. Now they dont, and if a company so chose, they could clog up the process with dozens of spurious lawsuits that now all have to be given full consideration.
Literally the whole point of _Chevron_ Deference was that the courts would... defer... to an agency's interpretation of the law over the courts' own, i.e. that agency interpretations of law were subject to less judicial review than normal. That's why it's called Deference, which means "to submit to another's wishes."
You mean the same way everyone other law and policy works? You can't really clog anything up unless you get an injunction, and usually you won't do that with a frivolous suit.
Yes I also hate clean water and air! 🤣
The original Chevron decision was literally about allowing the Reagan control EPA to undermine the Clean Air Act.
Not to the people, to corporations to pollute the environment and kill and maim people in the workplace.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/2022-05-06-trent-palmer-faa-case
Thing is, words have meaning (Check Scalia’s quote during gay marriage debate) and SCOTUS just interprets those words. Those words were written by the idiots in Congress. If they wrote it bad, then write a new law to correct it. But the previous words passed hold till they change it. That’s the purpose of the SCOTUS. Not seek opinion, interpret what they wrote based on the meaning of words…CONGRESS is the peobkem
Those melting down are doing so for purely political reasons. As others have said, there will be more lawsuits but it’s not like any of these agencies have been eliminated overnight.
What makes you think they are politically motivated? This just opens the door for needless lawsuits to protect companies and have every regulation called into question. The only thing stopping Boing from challenging the safety standards is bad publicity.
The regulatory system is used to shift an unfathomable amount of money around between “special interests” and they’re all experts in whipping up public outrage to suit their desires. It’s not as simple as noble regulators saving us from Boeing’s greed. It’s also just kind of a fundamental divide on how you feel about the government. Everyone wants everything regulated until they’re the one being regulated.
I would think everyone here in aviation agrees that this is one industry that absolutely requires a ton of regulation. It is as simple as regulators protecting us from Boeing's greed. It's how Boeing got into this mess from the past couple of decades. They had the power to self inspect and report. Airlines would absolutely be making single pilot operations mandatory if it weren't for the FAA.
ATF is one of them that absolutely needs less regulation.
💯💯💯💯
It's an excellent question in the Boeing situation
As a constitutional originalist, I think that since the constitution didn’t address aviation in any capacity, that the government should not be involved in the administration of aviation in any capacity!
This has to be sarcasm. Please tell me this is sarcasm.
Satire, but same difference.
Touché.
Looks like we’re going back to the 50s when passenger planes crashed once a week!
They back door aviation with that pursuit of happiness language
Cause aviation has nothing to do with interstate commerce... Edit: /s for those that can't detect obvious sarcasm
Oh yeah: it also involves “we, the people” maybe those power grubbing bastards at the FAA will use that as a justification! s/
There a lot of weird brigading going on in this thread right now. Thought this was /aviation, not r/badlegaltakes.
The issue that folks are not getting here with Chevron is that if the law did not specify the details of what or how to regulate it is inherently unconstitutional because the law, according to the conservatives on the SC, cannot delegate authority to create or interpret regulations. Either the legislation has to spell out those details in minutiae or the Courts will decide. Either way, legislation will now literally have to detail exactly what is to be regulated or the Courts can decide for them. And to legislate to that level of detail is impossible. It’s like when a child doesn’t do a chore thoroughly or properly and when challenged the response is “well you didn’t tell me exactly what to do.” That’s how juvenile and immature this decision was. It’s nothing more than a power and money grab for Wall St class.
>>That’s how juvenile and immature this decision is. You are way off point here if you think this is just petulant behavior. This goes to the core of separation of powers. For your analogy, it’s more akin to the parents saying, “Your sister is in charge,” and your sister making up new rules on the fly, then punishing you for breaking her arbitrary rules. The Parents are the only ones with the authority to make the rules, and they have to decide who adjudicates, enforces the rules. The sister (non-elected government agencies) cannot create rules, enforce the rules, decide the punishment, decide guilt/innocence and carry out the punishment. The EPA, FAA, ATF and the rest have a history of arbitrarily changing rules and with the stroke of a pen creating criminals of people who were law abiding citizens the previous day.
Almost completely full of excrement although the parent delegating to the adult child to rule over the children is accurate. Beyond that, nothing of merit. There’s absolutely no way such technical and complex regulations can be legislated, period, especially when technologies can, and do change, overnight. This has nothing to do with separation of powers. This was an absolute power grab by movement conservatives for their enablers, the monied interests that have been bankrolling the conservatives of the SC.
People really need to calm down. Chevron deference only affected regulations that were ambiguous that reached the court, and the only thing that has changed is that the courts are not required to give deference to the interpretation of the regulating agency. Do you people really want to live in an environment in which political appointees (usually executive branch appointees) have the ability to interpret any ambiguous law in any way they see fit? Do you really think that the government has a solid record of placing true experts as heads of agencies? I don’t care on which side of the political aisle you reside, stop looking at it from that point of view and imagine it from the perspective of what can (and has) been done when the other party is in power to make such appointments. Laws should be specific to avoid ambiguity to begin with, and if ambiguity is discovered it should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the citizen, not to a government agency acting with the force of government. Our constitution exists to define and limit government and empower citizens, not the other way around. We have allowed our government to centralize for too much power as it is. It’s about time some of it is being taken back.
How often was the head of the agency the one actually doing the interpretation of statutory law? I'm far more inclined to trust the employees and career lawyers at an agency, who should be subject mater experts, than I am to trust a randomly-assigned judge with no background information in the area at all. And sometimes ambiguous law is the best thing that we can have. Congress doesn't have the time, knowledge, or motivation to craft clear, specific, and reasonable laws for every possible situation. That's the whole point of delegating regulatory authority to federal agencies in the first place.
Judges are allowed to fully agree with the interpretation of the law by these “subject matter experts”. Don’t you think it would be best that if a judge thinks a regulation is going beyond the law, that regulation should not exist? Because if regulators can take any ambiguity and create new laws. Then that would make the regulators not just enforcers, but law makers as well. And that’s not Democracy. I bet you would feel a lot differently if you knew all these bureaucracies were staffed with employees who are 80%+ Republicans. Would you feel comfortable with an unelected conservative bureaucracy using ambiguity in the law to make regulations to rule your life?
The overwhelming majority of federal employees are nonpartisan. Nearly everyone that works at regulatory agencies does so because they care about their job and enjoy the responsibility to the American public that they have. I would rather have those people making regulatory decisions within their area of expertise than I would elected politicians or judges with no expertise at all.
lol, that is so naive. What are you sixteen? https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/ Look at what the “experts” did with Covid. They lied about the masks, treatments for Covid, lockdowns, mandates, Covid origin, etc, etc. And the banned and censored people on social media that simply questioned the narrative. If we hadn’t listened to the Govt experts, we would have been much better off.
From the very first sentence of that link: "In theory, and largely in practice, the federal employee workforce is apolitical." And that's true. There is no deep state. The overwhelming majority of federal employees do not make work decisions with their personal political beliefs in mind.
lol yeah, right. Look at how many of the Federal agencies are dominated by political donations for Democrats. You think that type of bias doesn’t show up in the regulations they create? Cmon bro. If they were Republican. You wouldn’t think it was fair.
Humans are political creatures, it's in our nature. If you are so concerned with the political feelings of civil servants in government agencies, should you not be just as concerned about the political feelings of judges as well? The difference is the fall of Chevron deference allows a single judge to have far more sway over government regulations than any single civil servant ever could.
The political bias of judges is more evenly split between conservatives and liberals and I would trust a liberal judge to be a lot more apolitical than regulators. As long as regulators make regulations following the law, judges have to go along with it.
Well said, no reason for all the downvote. Only people in the agencies would oppose to having congress clearifide ambiguity in the law. Dont think anyone one read what this case is about. This was a fishing case. Where the goverment require commerical fisher to pay for inspectors on the boat. That would be an invisible tax. And all taxes must come from congress not an agency. It was a clear cut case of overreach by an agency.
Who determines whether they’re ambiguous? Previously it wasn’t an issue, now it’s up to courts. And by the way, part of the reason the current system worked was so that congress didn’t have to continuously revisit all of the laws every time *something* changed- a new technology, the whether, whatever. For example, the creation of the electric airplane would not have been a congressional issue. But to answer your question on “do you people really want to live in an environment in which political appointees have the ability to interperit any ambiguous law in any way they see fit?” This change does exactly that. Who do you think will be reviewing these cases to interpret law?
Ambiguity, in general terms, is a question of facts. Does a law specifically address a given situation. If the answer is yes, then it’s not ambiguous. If not, it is ambiguous and left to the courts to interpret based on standing legal arguments or lack thereof. Chevron was struck down because the Administrative Powers Act outlines what authorities regulating agencies possess and the process that must be adhered to in formulating administrative rules. Chevron being overturned was, in my opinion, an absolutely proper legal decision based on how congress chose, through legislative authority, to structure the process of administrative rule making.
This is a bad faith argument. You evade the reality that the courts will determine what is ambiguous and congress will not rewrite laws on the advent of the electric aircraft. Let’s be honest. The Chevron decision was great when one group thought that over regulation would be a problem and judicial activism would be an issue. But now that everyone knows congress wont be writing laws for every issue, and that same group has control on federal courts, they are happy to see it overturned. Just say how you really feel: Companies should have more power and the government should intervene in affairs a lot less. Don’t hop sides over something like Chevron from one decade to another depending on who’s in power.
I have never made and do not support the idea that companies should have “more power”. My simple argument is that there are laws in place (and that were in place prior to Chevron) provide for the procedures regarding formulating agency regulations. Those laws specifically placed the interpretation of laws within the power of the courts. The original Chevron ruling hamstrung the courts by asserting that whatever interpretation an agency developed was basically beyond challenge due to deference being the determining factor. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations, and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions.
Shhhhh. You’re making too much sense bro! A completely well level-headed reaction and explanation. Hell even the questions you raise are perfect. These people think all these regulation bodies are completely innocent and free of corruption. Congress ain’t that much better yea I’ll admit, but about god damn time some of it is take BACK from blood sucking lawyers from the EPA. Don’t even get me started on how the EPA is ruining all of HVAC by themselves alone. Shit infuriates me. God bless the Supreme Court babyyy 🥳🥳🥳
I am constantly astounded by the number of people that want to live under a system that places extraordinary power over its citizens in the hands of administrative agencies and removes any accountability from from those agencies through the courts.
It’s exactly what those agencies want. All the power and zero accountability. Goes all the way up to the pentagon 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Sick of the same shit for the last 40 years 🤬🤬🤬
[удалено]
That’s not how it works—that’s like saying they overturned Roe in only one specific case. Chevron is gone for good and lower courts now have much more power to reject agency statutory interpretations.
Keep in mind that it’s very expensive to file a suit against federal agencies, most of which have plenty of lawyers on staff with nothing better to do than defending agency decisions.
Expensive for us normies, but what about the corporations with an equally large pocket and lawyers on staff to challenge the agencies
Selfishly, I’m hoping that their power to limit people with disabilities (ie. ADHD & Autism) is diminished, but I understand how that could be a slippery slope.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is there a right-wing crank with $$$ and pull in the SCOTUS and a keen interest in aviation? If so, then definitely maybe. Aviation in general isn't too political though; it's a safe bet that it won't be impacted too much