SCOTUS: Curbs on Fed agency regulatory power?

[Jmoser]

The alarming prospect raised by the Supreme Court rulings | CNN

Jennifer Rodgers writes the Supreme Court rulings on the Biden administration vaccine mandates reveal that defenders of significant federal agency power are now easily outnumbered on the court, which is alarming when one considers how many aspects of our live are shaped by the regulatory work of...

www.cnn.com

This may be a preview of the EPA case coming up, if the Feds lose that one maybe a torrent of suits against arbitrary ATF regulations could be in the wings?

Here the vax mandates went down due to OSHA exceeding their authority to regulate:

On the one hand, the three most conservative justices -- Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch -- had to write a concurring opinion in the OSHA case to argue that if the court had found that OSHA had the statutory power to impose its policy, it likely would have constituted an unconstitutional grant of legislative authority because of its imposition on state sovereignty. Clearly, the three other conservatives justices were not on board with such an obvious, and unnecessary, demonstration of their view that the states' wishes should trump the agency's powers in this situation.

On the other hand, even though a majority of justices was not willing to go that far in this the OSHA case, there were six votes for taking the decision-making power out of the hands of the agency: The majority opinion said Congress had the authority, the dissenters said OSHA, and those in the concurrence suggested that it be left to the states.

This is a debate that we have not yet seen the last of, and if I'm reading (and counting) tea leaves and justices correctly, federal agency rulemaking has a dangerous road ahead.

 

[Charlie]

It seems to be a good thing that federal agency rulemaking (administrative laws) should have a dangerous road ahead. Perhaps this will rein in the ATF and a few other agencies with unelected bureaucrats making decisions that should be made by elected officials who have some accountability to the citizens.

 

[Chuckman]

This is awful. Only recourse is to add justices that will rule the opposite. <sarc>

 

[gc70]

Federal agency authority must be curtailed. If the bureaucracy's power continues to grow, Congress will be left little more than trying to reach agreement to veto what the agencies do.

The concept of limiting federal agency authority must terrify leftists, who have worked for decades to embed their true believers in the bureaucracy.

 

[chiefjason]

I read most of it. Dear Lord, these people are begging for someone to have authority over them. That mindset is what is frightening to me. Calling Gov Bureaucrats "experts" these days is a stretch.

IMO the worst part of those rulings was the idea that one penny of Gov funds allows the Gov to do what they want in your industry. That's not attaching strings, it's selling Gov the ability to steer your business for a pittance to people that have no clue and don't care about your business. But the left would never admit that. They just want the unbridled control they can buy.

 

[Stick]

Federal agency authority must be curtailed. If the bureaucracy's power continues to grow, Congress will be left little more than trying to reach agreement to veto what the agencies do.

The concept of limiting federal agency authority must terrify leftists, who have worked for decades to embed their true believers in the bureaucracy.

Problem is, Congress gives the bureaucracy the authority to make rules "necessary for the implementation" of whatever legislative mandate they are given, but with no provisions for rules to be reviewed or vetoed by the legislative branch. That lets the congress critters hide behind the various rule making agencies and pretend they had nothing to do with unpopular regulations. It is not an accident, they like it this way.

 

[gc70]

Problem is, Congress gives the bureaucracy the authority to make rules "necessary for the implementation" of whatever legislative mandate they are given, but with no provisions for rules to be reviewed or vetoed by the legislative branch. That lets the congress critters hide behind the various rule making agencies and pretend they had nothing to do with unpopular regulations. It is not an accident, they like it this way.

Sure, members of Congress are lazy and want credit for a Law To Improve Something while leaving it to bureaucrats to fill in the details. And that is precisely why the Supreme Court needs to step in and require Congress to provide details and limits to ensure bureaucrats are not effectively making laws.

Bureaucrats cannot be allowed to make laws because they would make laws for their own benefit rather than for the good of the nation and its people. Bluntly, laws that benefit bureaucrats inevitably lead toward totalitarianism.

 

[clay_fv]

"OH YES BIG DADDY GOV'T, GOVERN ME HARDRRrrrr!!!"

 

[Stick]

Sure, members of Congress are lazy and want credit for a Law To Improve Something while leaving it to bureaucrats to fill in the details.

I don't think it just because they are lazy. I think they like to hide behind the regulatory agencies as a form of "plausible deniability" so no one blames them for an unpopular or unnecesary rule after they are the ones who passed a law giving the agency the authority to make the rules in the first place.

Bureaucrats cannot be allowed to make laws because they would make laws for their own benefit rather than for the good of the nation and its people. Bluntly, laws that benefit bureaucrats inevitably lead toward totalitarianism.

Technically they aren't making laws, but they do have the power to enforce their rules, so, yeah, there is a pretty fine line there. Here in NC we have a rules review commission that has to approve any new rules made by regulatory agencies such as an occupational licensing board. Basically they have to verify that the agency has the legal authority to make the rule, and require the agency to show why the rule is necessary. If they get 10 or more letters objecting to the proposed rule it has to go to the legislature for approval. I've been thinking for several years now that something like that on a Federal level would put the brakes on some of these out of control beauracracies and solve a lot of problems.

 

[Jmoser]

It seems SCOTUS is moving toward a position where agencies can only regulate 'major issues' specifically tasked by Congress. In other words authority to enact regulations having major impact has to be specifically noted by Congress; no more willy nilly regulating whatever my agency feels like.


The court’s majority opinion signals that this Supreme Court is poised to strike down an undisclosed segment of federal regulations that don’t follow express, detailed authority from Congress. And even more troubling, the court’s conservatives have apparently determined that Congress may do so only if the subject matter of the law implicates what the court deems a “major question,” a nebulous and undefined term that has no textual support in the Constitution.

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion lays out the conservatives’ theory well, even tying it expressly to the non-delegation doctrine. When the federal government acts, he explained, “t must … act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule. ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly’ if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions ‘of vast economic and political significance.’” For this proposition, Gorsuch cites a decision from 2019 and one from 2021 — both recent, and both issued in an era of modern conservative-leaning jurists dominating the court. Gorsuch notes that “[w]e sometimes call this the major questions doctrine.”

Here is a good article:

Opinion | The Supreme Court Just Made an Incredible Power Grab

The ruling striking down Biden’s vaccine mandate threatens decades of statutory authority to let agencies write important regulations.

www.politico.com

 

[JohnFreeman]

Curbing the regulatory overreach of agencies would be huge. The tyranny of the federal bureaucrats has been constant over the past couple of decades. Congress has been lazy by saying thing like "EPA, go protect the environment" then letting the desk generals run amok from that hazy charter.