Goodbye Chevron Doctrine and Bureaucrats Unilaterally Deciding Their Own Power, and Hello Hysteria

It is time to be triggered and extremely angry because the radical pro-Trump Supreme Court just ruled against the liberal agenda and in favor of “fascism.” President Joe Biden was just handed the power to deploy Seal Team 6 to assassinate the Supreme Court justices and his main political rival, Donald Trump (this hypothetical comes from Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion and has been echoed by left-wing pundits, such as pro-Biden mouthpiece Harry Sisson). At least, anti-Trumpers would have you believe this gobbledygook, but in reality, the decision gives no such power. Rather, in granting partial immunity to Trump in his court cases, it separates a president’s “official” acts within his or her “core constitutional capacity” and unprotected “unofficial” acts, and in doing so, it is no different than choosing to not prosecute President Barack Obama or George W. Bush for slaughtering civilians overseas or spying on Americans (both of which are unconstitutional but official acts of the presidency, and assassinating a political enemy would be unconstitutional and also not within the scope of what our society views as acceptable for the presidency).

However, what has gotten perhaps less attention but is still being decried by liberal pundits is the overturning of the Chevron doctrine (Chevron deference), and just like with the immunity case, it is being spun as an apocalyptic ruling that will cause people to stop having clean air, protections from workplace hazards, and airplanes that stay up in the sky. Of course, all of this is nonsense and fearmongering, but since liberals are terrified that a senile Biden will not be able to win the presidency on merits (especially after a poor debate performance), the American public needs to be frightened into voting against Trump in some way. What better method is there than to turn the Supreme Court into a fascist-supporting bogeyman that is preparing the framework for a terrifying Project 2025? On planet reality, though, many people acknowledge that the permanent bureaucratic state is far too powerful, and the June 28 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) knocks it down a peg.

The principle set forth in this case originated from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), where the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Air Act of 1963 allowed all pollution-emitting equipment to be lumped together into a single “bubble,” thus eliminating the permit requirement for new devices if they do not cause an overall increase in emissions. The ruling stated that the “bubble” principle was a reasonable explanation of the “stationary source” of pollution terminology listed in the Clean Air Act, and therefore, the EPA was permitted to continue with its interpretation of the law. At the same time, the precedent was set that bureaucratic agencies (sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government) were able to create rules based on their own interpretations of the laws and that the courts must abide by their decisions whenever there is ambiguity in the understanding of how something should be applied. The irony is that liberal pundits are now crying that experts will not be allowed to have a say in rules and regulations, but Natural Resources Defense Council, which also consisted of environmental experts, sued the EPA (and Chevron) in this case, so it was experts versus experts (this shows that not all experts within the same field agree on everything).

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine, originated from federal regulations on commercial fishing (in this case, the Atlantic herring fisheries). The Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service issued a rule in 1976 (based on the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) requiring vessels to pay $700 or more per day to cover the costs of having a government agent (known as a monitor) on board the ship to ensure that proper federal regulations were being met. Of course, this was a huge financial burden in an industry with thin margins, and two challenges were brought by fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island (the Rhode Island case was Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce).

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the Chevron doctrine violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which “sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies” and directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.” That law “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference.” These simple fishermen changed the course of how the bureaucracy operates.

Ultimately, the ruling in this case allows the courts to determine how much power an agency has and what authority Congress intended to give them when determining interpretations of laws. It does not prevent the bureaucracy from making rules and regulations, nor does it prevent expert witnesses in the courts, as liberals are trying to suggest (they are saying that experts are being shut out of the process of interpreting the law, but they can be part of the procedure by providing testimony in court cases). It simply cuts off the deference to the agencies and does not allow bureaucrats to interpret the broad laws that Congress passed.

Who really thinks that it is a good idea to let bureaucrats decide how much power they have, anyway? Are we really that arrogant as a society that we think unelected experts should have more power than our elected officials? Are we an oligarchy of bureaucrats and not a constitutional republic (representative democracy for those who cannot tolerate the concept of a “republic” and think that the word is racist). Why should Congress and the courts, you know, the official branches of government, not have a say in interpreting laws? Why do we allow a fourth branch of government to essentially legislate and create rules and regulations pertaining to everything in society? Doing so is a dereliction of duty on the part of Congress, as that body passes broad bills that are then used as justification for agencies to regulate every aspect of our lives without congressional oversight.

Unfortunately, this Supreme Court ruling does not do anything to curb the vast power of agencies, but it does allow the courts to take back their authority to interpret the law when it is not clear enough to know if the agencies are permitted to take certain actions. The fourth branch of government will still continue to operate as normal, and the unelected experts will have their unconstitutional power to dictate to us how we live, contrary to the doomsday scenarios created by left-wing pundits and the corporate media. We will simply go back to what the relationship between Congress, the courts, and bureaucracy was like before 1984 (only forty years ago). At that time, agencies were still issuing rules, and people were not unnecessarily dying because federal monitors were not on fishing vessels and spying for the government. There will just be some more checks and balances on bureaucratic power, which is a good thing in a constitutional republic that is supposed to be ruled by the people and not unelected experts. But hey, according to the Left, experts know better than us mere peasants, and they should be able to overrule decisions made by our elected representatives.

The courts will not, as Justice Elena Kagan opined, become an “administrative czar” and take over the “power to determine what rules will govern AI, or the nation’s health care or transportation systems, or even the environment.” They will, in fact, be taking back power that never should have been given to the unelected bureaucrats in the first place (again, forty years is not that long in legal precedence, so acting like the Chevron doctrine has been in practice for eternity is absurd). The ruling may make it so that bureaucrats are reserved about implementing new regulations out of fear that they could be overturned in the courts, but honestly, is it not good when government officials are afraid of actions that could be taken against them (too bad we cannot make the president afraid to implement unconstitutional or deadly policies)?

The courts interpret laws, not the bureaucracy. We are led to believe that it is horrible that unelected experts may actually need to confer with Congress before enacting regulations and implementing new rules and gaining more power (they may be experts in their respective fields, but they are not experts in government policy). When there is a new problem, bureaucrats may now be unable to issue dictatorial edicts to solve it and may have to consult with the elected body of the people. Does this mean that a small amount of power will be taken away from the oligarchs and given back to the people? What a novel concept!

Overall, the fearmongering being deployed by the Democratic Party, most likely as a way to hurt Donald Trump’s chances in the upcoming election, is unwarranted, and you should not fall for its trap. The Loper Bright case is not going to crash airplanes or create a toxic planet or poison our water and food or make us more prone to illness or halt putting Wi-Fi on school buses (why is the government even doing this?) any more than was the case prior to forty years ago. It is an election year, and liberals are afraid that the “fascist” Trump will consolidate power and become a “dictator on day one” (a quote that was taken out of context, as is the case with almost everything that he says, but that does not stop the pushing of false narratives). This ruling actually does not go far enough in crippling the administrative state and the fourth branch of government that should not even exist, but hey, it is something positive. The bureaucracy should be significantly smaller than it currently is, not be an independent legislature, and simply execute laws that Congress passes (those laws should spell out exactly what actions the president and his bureaucrats can take, and there should be little left up to interpretation). In reality, not much will likely change with this decision, and the rhetoric surrounding it will eventually fade away, but those of us who believe in smaller and more restraint government can celebrate a tiny victory against unelected oligarchs.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.