Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Should Agencies Decide Law? Doctrine May Be Tested at Gorsuch Hearing
Hat tip, Trainorders: Passenger Trains > Should the FRA, EPA etc have so much power?
Should Agencies Decide Law? Doctrine May Be Tested at Gorsuch Hearing
Deal Professor
By STEVEN DAVIDOFF SOLOMON MARCH 14, 2017
The confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, is set for next week, and a sundry list of big issues is bound to be brought up. ... One involves an arcane legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, which many say will be crucial to the Trump administration’s plans to tame the regulatory state.
Chevron deference, named after the legal case from which it arose, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, addresses what courts should do when Congress passes a law with an ambiguous interpretation.
This happens more than you might think, involving laws from financial regulation to drug safety. The Dodd-Frank Act alone requires 390 rules to be promulgated, with the Volcker Rule by itself running 950 pages, including interpretations.
In today’s regulatory world, agencies often step in to fill the gap, putting forth their own interpretation of a statute. The principle of the Chevron case says that a federal court will defer to a federal agency’s views. One rationale for this doctrine is that an agency, with its expertise, is better positioned than a judge to know a statute’s meaning. ... It may sound rather innocuous and bland, but it speaks to separation-of-power issues, as well as to how much power we want to give the administrative state, the array of federal agencies that administer and promulgate regulations.
Deal Professor
By STEVEN DAVIDOFF SOLOMON MARCH 14, 2017
The confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, is set for next week, and a sundry list of big issues is bound to be brought up. ... One involves an arcane legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, which many say will be crucial to the Trump administration’s plans to tame the regulatory state.
Chevron deference, named after the legal case from which it arose, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, addresses what courts should do when Congress passes a law with an ambiguous interpretation.
This happens more than you might think, involving laws from financial regulation to drug safety. The Dodd-Frank Act alone requires 390 rules to be promulgated, with the Volcker Rule by itself running 950 pages, including interpretations.
In today’s regulatory world, agencies often step in to fill the gap, putting forth their own interpretation of a statute. The principle of the Chevron case says that a federal court will defer to a federal agency’s views. One rationale for this doctrine is that an agency, with its expertise, is better positioned than a judge to know a statute’s meaning. ... It may sound rather innocuous and bland, but it speaks to separation-of-power issues, as well as to how much power we want to give the administrative state, the array of federal agencies that administer and promulgate regulations.