HB 19-3: No More Chevron Deference Act (Passed)

[YE]

NO MORE CHEVRON DEFERENCE ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as the No More Chevron Deference Act

SECTION II: JUDICIAL POWER IN AGENCY ACTIONS
a. In a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party in a federal court of proper jurisdiction, the court shall decide all questions of law, including the interpretation of a Constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency. Notwithstanding any other law, this act applies in any action for judicial review of an agency action that is authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect immediately but shall not be retroactive to any cases pending in a federal court.

Sponsor: Tea Party Hater
24 hours to advocate

[Mr. Reactionary]

This restores to our judges the power to interpret questions of law. Based off some bungled 80's nonsense, it is suggested that judges must accept a bureaucrats interpretation of a law rather than the judges judgment. That is what judges are for, to interpret law. This repeals Chevron deference in federal courts by clarifying that the courts are in fact, the judicial branch of government.

[fhtagn]

No issues from me on this.

[fhtagn]

Bump.

Anyone here?

[crickets chirping]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Bump.

Anyone here?

[crickets chirping]

Hopefully the lack of debate indicates unanimous support for this common sense proposal.

[fhtagn]

Bump.

Anyone here?

[crickets chirping]

Hopefully the lack of debate indicates unanimous support for this common sense proposal.

One would think, but it's impossible to know since people are refusing to debate still.

[Devout Centrist]

While I support limits on the extent and the use of the 'Chevron Doctrine', I cannot in good conscious support a complete dismissal of the doctrine. Oftentimes, Congress passes laws that are open ended and vague. The wording may not be perfect and an agency's interpretation of existing law can be a useful mechanism to uphold Congressional intent.

[Mr. Reactionary]

And we finally get a bite (albeit from a Senator, but hey, I'll take it).

What I will first say is that Chevron has no bearing on whether or not an agency can pass regulations at all ... if Congress delegates with a clear intelligible principle, thats fine. What Chevron does is limit the ability of people to challenge in court specific regulations that have deviated from the Congressional grant AKA due process. Why a judge should defer to a non-lawyer bureaucrat on a question of law during a court case is beyond me ...

Here is a link to a good article that analyzes how inconsistently and politically Chevron is applied by Appellate Judges.

Some highlights:

Most doctrine seeks to provide substantive principles to resolve legal issues. But deference doctrines do something different from and in addition to substantive legal doctrine. They command judges to defer to other actors’ decisions of fact or law (such as states, agencies, juries, or other judges) based on others’ sovereign interests or institutional advantages.

Chevron itself was the product of the Reagan Administration—a doctrine that shifted power from a liberal D.C. Circuit to a more conservative presidential administration.

For instance, in Michigan v. EPA (2015), [the Court] expressed constitutional concerns about Chevron deference, both under Article III of the Constitution because the doctrine displaces the court’s duty to say what the law is and under Article I by facilitating excessively broad congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to federal agencies.

In other word, Judges are trained to interpret questions of law and while they may not be perfect this interpretation largely tracks general, neutral principles. Bureaucrats are NOT doing that. Bureaucrats are exercising a POLITICAL judgment. They are subject to the desires of the Chief Executive. That should be apparently obvious when Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump literally have the same agencies overturning their own past interpretations that were passed when the other party was in charge. Judges should be the one to interpret questions of LAW. Chevron deference is a chickensh**t abomination. Why even bother allowing for court cases if the the court MUST agree with the bureaucrats, even where the bureaucrats have a poorly reasoned, politically-motivated interpretation? We should empower our judges to be fair and neutral arbiters of law, not secretaries whose job is just to rubber stamp yes to their "bosses'" decisions. It actually politicizes the court more to maintain Chevron, as political decisions are declared to be "neutral" when they are nothing of the sort.

Eliminating Chevron deference just makes sense. It limits the politicization of the courts and makes judicial review actually mean something other than a rubber stamping kangaroo court. And eliminating Chevron deference wont hobble the regulatory state ... they will still be able to make regulations ... Chevron doesnt affect Congress's ability to delegate regulation power to bureaucrats. Everyone should support it and I hope we can get some feedback from the people whose job is to read this bill and give feedback.

[Devout Centrist]

And we finally get a bite (albeit from a Senator, but hey, I'll take it).

What I will first say is that Chevron has no bearing on whether or not an agency can pass regulations at all ... if Congress delegates with a clear intelligible principle, thats fine. What Chevron does is limit the ability of people to challenge in court specific regulations that have deviated from the Congressional grant AKA due process. Why a judge should defer to a non-lawyer bureaucrat on a question of law during a court case is beyond me ...

Well there's certainly room for overuse regarding the Chevron deference, and I definitely think that its use should be substantially restricted. But my underlying concern is, if laws passed by this body are not technical enough, there's room for strict interpretation that may not be in line with the intention of lawmakers who passed the bill to begin with. Is there any way to ensure that this risk is minimized while reducing the use of the Chevron deference in court?

In other word, Judges are trained to interpret questions of law and while they may not be perfect this interpretation largely tracks general, neutral principles. Bureaucrats are NOT doing that. Bureaucrats are exercising a POLITICAL judgment. They are subject to the desires of the Chief Executive. That should be apparently obvious when Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump literally have the same agencies overturning their own past interpretations that were passed when the other party was in charge. Judges should be the one to interpret questions of LAW. Chevron deference is a chickensh**t abomination. Why even bother allowing for court cases if the the court MUST agree with the bureaucrats, even where the bureaucrats have a poorly reasoned, politically-motivated interpretation? We should empower our judges to be fair and neutral arbiters of law, not secretaries whose job is just to rubber stamp yes to their "bosses'" decisions. It actually politicizes the court more to maintain Chevron, as political decisions are declared to be "neutral" when they are nothing of the sort.

Judges, too, are subject to political judgement and considerations and as much as I would like to say that judges are purely neutral arbiters of the law, this isn't always the case nor should we argue to the contrary. While government officials are, by their very nature, are political agents, we cannot ignore that judges can also be political agents in their capacity as agents of the law. I don't think it's fair to argue that the judiciary will simply be more politically neutral without the Chevron deference.

Eliminating Chevron deference just makes sense. It limits the politicization of the courts and makes judicial review actually mean something other than a rubber stamping kangaroo court. And eliminating Chevron deference wont hobble the regulatory state ... they will still be able to make regulations ... Chevron doesnt affect Congress's ability to delegate regulation power to bureaucrats. Everyone should support it and I hope we can get some feedback from the people whose job is to read this bill and give feedback.

Again, my concern is that any bill that isn't sufficiently technical will be at risk of strict interpretation, which may be to the contrary of the legislator's intent. If there's a way to reduce the risk of this, while ending the Chevron deference, I would support it.

[YE]

Looking at this right now. I'll have commentary soon.

[YE]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Wiki article refers to

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll045.xml

(Sec. 107) The bill revises standards for the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency's: (1) determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by OIRA, (2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule, or (3) guidance.

How does this bill differ from the bit from the 2017 IRL bill?

[Mr. Reactionary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Wiki article refers to

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll045.xml

(Sec. 107) The bill revises standards for the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency's: (1) determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by OIRA, (2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule, or (3) guidance.

How does this bill differ from the bit from the 2017 IRL bill?

So I did model this off a federal bill bit not this one. The bill you linked to does end Chevron deference however... what you linked to also includes both the REINS Act and a mandatory Cost Benefit analysis for all regulations. The bill being debated does NOT include REINS or CBAs.

Although REINS is separately in the queue for the future.

This is a narrow bill targeted solely at Chevron deference as that is a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution that will Hopefully pass.

[fhtagn]

Bumping this since it's getting buried.

I didn't want to motion for anything unless no one else has anything else to add.

[YE]

I think I can motion for a final vote.

[fhtagn]

What's the status on this?

[YE]

A final vote is now open.

[fhtagn]

Aye

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Respectfully Abstain

[JGibson]

NAY

[YE]

Abstain

[Dr. MB]

Nay

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[lfromnj]

I find it a reasonable idea on what courts should do
 Aye.

[YE]

Passes 3-2-2-2.

[YE]

NO MORE CHEVRON DEFERENCE ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as the No More Chevron Deference Act

SECTION II: JUDICIAL POWER IN AGENCY ACTIONS
a. In a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party in a federal court of proper jurisdiction, the court shall decide all questions of law, including the interpretation of a Constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency. Notwithstanding any other law, this act applies in any action for judicial review of an agency action that is authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect immediately but shall not be retroactive to any cases pending in a federal court.

House of Representatives
Passed in the House of Representatives 3-2-2-2

X YE