[persnicker]

Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border, because they interpreted the US constitution to mean anyone on US "soil" to mean: not literally on the US "soil", though only once you cross the border. Nice self-serving interpretation.

Source: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... - second point above the fold.

Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.

[cyberax]

> Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border

No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference.

> Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.

Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.

[lolinder]

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.

I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems. It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.

[pdonis]

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.

Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are not things that should be done anyway, at least not by the government.

Also, the entire apparatus of the administrative state, with executive branch agencies issuing regulations that have the force of law, is arguably unconstitutional: Article I of the Constitutions say that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and does not allow Congress to delegate it. The justification given by the government, and accepted by the Supreme Court in Hampton Co. v. United States, was that it is ok for Congress to delegate lawmaking to executive branch agencies as long as it gives them an "intelligible principle" to guide them. That is one of many examples of Supreme Court decisions that have no recognizable basis in the Constitution.

[persnicker]

It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.

[_heimdall]

What makes you so confident that were always going to be better off allowing the executive branch to functionally define law?

The Chevron deference has always seemed to me to be a workaround when the balance of powers is inconvenient. Congress can avoid debating and voting on a bill and the executive branch gets to effectively write law without legislating it through an elected congress.

[dragonwriter]

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.

That's not really true; the US--including a generally modern administrative state--worked "at all" when Skidmore deference (which existed before Chevron and applied with wider scope) was the only form of deference to administrative agencies required by Supreme Court preference. Leaving aside the question of whether it is legally correct, overturning Chevron is not apocalyptic, and it is also relatively easily reversible, since it was not a decision about the Constitutional separation of powers but the interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It can be, to the extent necessary, undone by statute, either specific grants to specific agencies regarding specific laws or broadly by amending or superceding the relevant provisions of the APA.

Loper Bright moves more power to the (lower, obviously, as the Supreme Court could always do what it did there) courts than they had under Chevron, and it will increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and the degree to which -- as a direct consequence -- wealthy interests are inherently favored by the cost of resolving disputes in a wide range of areas until and unless legislative changes are made. But it isn't apocalyptic on its own.

(Obviously, it increases the cost of Congressional dysfunction, though, which has been a serious problem recently.)

[LastTrain]

You are both being overly dramatic about this. The system will continue to function and adjustments will be made for the new legal reality.

[skissane]

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.

A judicial doctrine concocted by conservatives in 1984 so that the Reagan administration could let an oil company pollute more is “the reason the US works at all”?

A more liberal Supreme Court might have sided with the environmentalists and upheld the decision below (written by none other than the notorious RBG-she hadn’t been elevated to the Supreme Court yet). It’s a good thing that didn’t happen, because then the US would have stopped working

[matrix87]

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.

I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision

Not to say that I agree with the recent supreme court decision, but eventually the dust will settle

[yongjik]

That doesn't sound right. Chevron doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want - the court always has the authority to step in and say "Hey, that's unconstitutional," when it is actually unconstitutional.

[cvoss]

Right. Chevron was about letting agencies help interpret ambiguous statutes that delegate authority from Congress to an agency.

But by definition, Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have. In particular, Congress doesn't have the authority to transgress the Constitution.

So there's no question of whether the statute permits the agency to transgress the Constitution. It never does and never can. Even if the law said "Congress authorizes the CBP to violate the Constitutition," the agency would still not be authorized to violate the Constitution.

[persnicker]

When Chevron was active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.

In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.

[admissionsguy]

There was a presumption that the government is right, so the application of the law was not impartial.

[aaronbrethorst]

I love seeing new accounts pop up that only seem to exist to support specific SCOTUS decisions with misleading claims like this one.

[persnicker]

If it's so misleading then explain why.

[pdonis]

> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border

That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them.

And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.

[biofox]

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

[akio]

Chevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is.

You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...

[pnw]

The Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...

[cyberax]

It's not credible.

[kogus]

George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c...

And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...

[DiggyJohnson]

The comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?

[roflyear]

Can you substantiate this claim?

> When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.

Specifically that Chevron enables this - I don't see how Chevron applies here.

[rat87]

No it didn't. This is another nonsense defense of an extreme activist conservative court just like when they decided to take away people's rights to choose solely didn't like Abortion without any reason (Roe vs Wades logic hasn't changed, merely the number of exteemly conservative judges on the court). They don't like regulations so they'll blow up the ways regulations have worked even though it will make a huge mess and overload the already way too busy courts.

[aredox]

Oh, really? So now it is not the case at all?

I haven't heard anything from CBP, so we can all guess your "fact" is disingenuous...

(And if it were really the case, how long before it is even more enshrined in law?)