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.
Can you cite any case that proves this bizarre interpretation? Has the CBP ever been challenged on its practices, and have the case rest on Chevron deference?
As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
Chevron deference has little to nothing to do with constitutionality. It is a principle that says when Congress makes (ambiguous) laws and executive bodies interpret them according to their best judgment (having come to that judgment through an orderly and open process) the judiciary will defer to that executive body's judgment that they are following congressional intent.
If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.
If a law could be challenged, but a regulation based on that law can't be challenged, then that's a problem and we should get rid of that specific issue. But that's not the main point of Chevron and doesn't require overturning the entire thing.
Theoretically maybe, but I find it difficult the believe that a conservative court will do anything to liberalize border policing. More likely they will find/invent some new justification to allow it, possibly requiring even tougher policing.
tsimionescu|1 year ago
As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
plorg|1 year ago
If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.
roflyear|1 year ago
Do you have one source for this? A case where someone tried, or a blog post by a legal expert discussing this?
Dylan16807|1 year ago
jhallenworld|1 year ago