Will the SCOTUS Chevron Decision Affect FDA Tobacco Rulemaking?

[woodsroad]

In a decision released Friday, the SCOTUS reversed a 1984 decision that gave government regulators more sway in creating rules that are not directly rooted in legislation.

The WSJ wrote today:
“In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court abandoned a legal doctrine called Chevron deference, which has long helped federal agencies defend their regulations in court when challenged by industry groups.

The doctrine, created by the high court in a 1984 case, stood for the idea that judges should defer to executive branch agencies when it comes to interpreting gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable.”

Not wanting to speculate here (but really wanting to speculate here), is there anyone among us that can speak with semi-authority as to how this may alter the course of FDA Tobacco Deeming rulemaking?

 

[huntertrw]

Is there an attorney in the house?

 

[Hillcrest]

is there anyone among us that can speak with semi-authority

Isn't that what we always do ???

P.S. Without semi-authority, I would think that someone would have to challenge a ruling in court and site the above case to strike down any existing rules; I don't think the government stops being itself simply because the court rules...at least they don't seem to in other areas.

 

[huntertrw]

"Mason? Who's Mason?"

 

[jpberg]

In a decision released Friday, the SCOTUS reversed a 1984 decision that gave government regulators more sway in creating rules that are not directly rooted in legislation.

The WSJ wrote today:
“In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court abandoned a legal doctrine called Chevron deference, which has long helped federal agencies defend their regulations in court when challenged by industry groups.

The doctrine, created by the high court in a 1984 case, stood for the idea that judges should defer to executive branch agencies when it comes to interpreting gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable.”

Not wanting to speculate here (but really wanting to speculate here), is there anyone among us that can speak with semi-authority as to how this may alter the course of FDA Tobacco Deeming rulemaking?

Like you, I had the same thought in my head.
Unlike you, I didn’t think to ask any of the rubes herein.

 

[fireground_piper]

I give it a firm, maybe.

 

[huntertrw]

Unlike you, I didn’t think to ask any of the rubes herein.

He might take umbrage at that comment...

 

[woodsroad]

Isn't that what we always do ???

P.S. Without semi-authority, I would think that someone would have to challenge a ruling in court and site the above case to strike down any existing rules; I don't think the government stops being itself simply because the court rules...at least they don't seem to in other areas.

Since most of my deep knowledge of the law is derived from hours of watching “Top Ten Courtroom Karens” episodes on YouTube, I thought I’d defer to someone who might do this stuff for a living.

Yes, I concur (leagalesque language for “agree”) that a plaintiff with standing would have to either contest a regulation that they consider to be extralegal, or appeal a court decision where Chevron was applied.

 

[sablebrush52]

I would have cared back in 2016, when the FDA Deeming thing first hit our shores, when the quality was higher and there was a lot of creativity happening.
Now? Meh...

However, it's great news for polluters.

 

[The Amish Tyrant]

I carry a copy of the Constitution in my backpack just to make sure it still exists.

With a newly found penchant for overturning precedent, we have entered the Great Unknown.

 

[woodsroad]

I would have cared back in 2016, when the FDA Deeming thing first hit our shores, when the quality was higher and there was a lot of creativity happening.
Now? Meh...

However, it's great news for polluters.

While there may definitely be some downsides to Chevron, the blame for that falls squarely on our legislators for being too lazy and too scared to write detailed legislation, and on the regulators for overstepping their mandate.

 

[woodsroad]

I carry a copy of the Constitution in my backpack just to make sure it still exists.

With a newly found penchant for overturning precedent, we have entered the Great Unknown.

Precedents are made to be overturned. Otherwise, we’d still be living in a government-mandated segregated society, among other such niceties.

 

[Hillcrest]

While there may definitely be some downsides to Chevron, the blame for that falls squarely on our legislators for being too lazy and too scared to write detailed legislation, and on the regulators for overstepping their mandate.

I don't think they have written legislation in years ... it seems to all be written by special interests and skimmed by staff ... I'm not sure they even read it anymore. 2 cents adjusted for current inflation.

'You have to pass it to see what's in it'

 

[woodsroad]

“Keep it vague, them hash it out in rulemaking”

 

[The Amish Tyrant]

Precedents are made to be overturned. Otherwise, we’d still be living in a segregated society, among other such niceties.

Or in the alternative, setting aside precedents would allow us to de-evolve into situations of the past (i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade).

The concepts of and behind jurisprudence are fascinating, but I don't wear the black dress.

 

[Hillcrest]

overturning Roe v. Wade

I don't believe it was actually overturned ... I thought they merely said it wasn't a federal issue (commerce clause or equal protection clause didn't apply) but/therefore a state issue. Caveat: I am not positive on this as I didn't read it at the time just news snippets so I may be wrong.

 

[Hillcrest]

"Mason? Who's Mason?"

View attachment 320793

I have that tie somewhere ... does that count ??!!!

 

[huntertrw]

I have that tie somewhere ... does that count ??!!!

Not for the win; however, you would "tie" for honorable mention!

 

[warren99]

In a decision released Friday, the SCOTUS reversed a 1984 decision that gave government regulators more sway in creating rules that are not directly rooted in legislation.

The WSJ wrote today:
“In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court abandoned a legal doctrine called Chevron deference, which has long helped federal agencies defend their regulations in court when challenged by industry groups.

The doctrine, created by the high court in a 1984 case, stood for the idea that judges should defer to executive branch agencies when it comes to interpreting gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable.”

Not wanting to speculate here (but really wanting to speculate here), is there anyone among us that can speak with semi-authority as to how this may alter the course of FDA Tobacco Deeming rulemaking?

As a (retired) attorney, I suspect so; although my expertise was not in administrative law, having spent the bulk of my career defending large insurance companies against claims brought by widows and orphans.

 

[warren]

Not wanting to speculate here (but really wanting to speculate here), is there anyone among us that can speak with semi-authority as to how this may alter the course of FDA Tobacco Deeming rulemaking?

I can't speak with any authority but, it's a vulnerability which could be explored by a party with standing. My very humble and under-educated opinion only.