Will the SCOTUS Chevron Decision Affect FDA Tobacco Rulemaking?

[ClinchKnot]

I suspect that the reversal of Chevron will simply lead to more government dysfunction. Without clear statutory guidance built into regulations, and without the deference to the alphabet agencies in interpretation of regulations, interest groups will keep all the agencies swamped with intractable lawsuits questioning every single thing they do. Good or bad depending on if you like that function of government.

When it comes to tobacco legislation, governmental aims all seem geared to recapturing revenue, with a public health argument just slapped on top loosely.

 

[Hillcrest]

If I thoroughly vetted each candidate, I’d be morally unable to vote.

Its ok ...most of the candidates are morally unable to hold office so it balances out.

 

[sablebrush52]

I must disagree, no surprise of course, the blame rests entirely on an electorate, us, we vote single issue or totally uninformed about the candidates. The voters can simply be naive or, exclusively concerned with what's good for them and their wallets. Candidates understand this singularity and play to it. Voters, by and large, seem to me to be extremely gullible and are lacking, at least many of them, the willingness to put their wants after the needs of the country. Tell me you thoroughly research each candidate, each issue, and vote, not for your personal interests but, for what's best for the country as a whole. Hell, I can't say that every election.

Bingo! People really don't pay much attention to the history of the candidates on whom they vote. The majority of the population say get their "news" from antisocial media, an ecosystem of faceless anonymous voices, only some of them human, who put out stories they claim as true without offering evidence, or they follow what their friends and/or family tell them to do, many of them influenced by these same anonymous "influencers". It's the rare bird that takes time to independently sift through records to see that candidate's actual track record. Most people seem to be profoundly ignorant regarding cause and effect, so people get the government that they deserve, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.
I've been as guilty of this civic dereliction as anyone. But I did finally get disgusted with myself for taking the right and opportunity to vote as indifferently as I did, and now actually research the candidates' track records, which isn't all that difficult to do once you start looking. It does take a few evenings, certainly a lot less time that I spent watching programming before voting on the EMMYs.

 

[AJL67]

Long and short, the non-elected bureaucrats can't just make up laws, charge companies fees and fine them as they go. There you you go, one sentence,

 

[estate_cob]

Chevron deference was the practice of courts deferring to administrative agencies' interpretation of statutes. So the way to answer the question would seem to be to ask: which tobacco regulations depend on contentious interpretation of statutes; and, of those, which would courts be most likely to hold that tobacco regulation falls outside the scope of the law?

It seems that a lot of tobacco control is pretty popular, and that legislatures would be glad to write statutes that empower agencies to implement sweeping rules.