The End of Chevron Deference Doctrine (and a new weapon against the ATF)?.

[cybermgk]

 

[Euler]

Sackett v EPA (docket)

 

For those who may choose to skip the video: The topic case questioned whether the Environmental Protection Agency had jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to control what the petitioners (the Sacketts) could do with wetlands that were completely contained on their private property.

Opinion said:

...

The CWA's use of "waters" in §1362(7) refers only to "geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes'" and to adjacent wetlands that are "indistinguishable" from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.

...

 

TL;DR: No.

 

IMO Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Loper Bright v Raimondo - Chevron deference is probably a better case to watch, since it's specifically about Chevron deference.

[cybermgk]

Was looking more at these parts of the Opinion/Decision

 

(1) First, this Court “require Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.”

 

Second, the EPA’s interpretation gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties. Due process requires Congress to define penal statutes “‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited’” and “‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” McDonnell v. United States.

 

This freewheeling inquiry provides little notice to landowners of their obligations under the CWA. Facing severe criminal sanctions for even negligent violations, property owners are “left ‘to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.’” Sackett, 566 U. S., at 124 (quoting Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 758 (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring)). Where a penal statute could sweep so broadly as to render criminal a host of what might otherwise be considered ordinary activities, we have been wary about going beyond what “Congress certainly intended the statute to cover.” Skilling, 561

 

An other similar language that are definitely more nails in the coffin for Chevron Deference, and DEFINITELY a bad sign for the Bump Stock and Pistol Brace litigtaion.

[SiliconSorcerer]

Also of note: 9-0 decision. 

 

[cybermgk]

On 5/26/2023 at 9:19 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Also of note: 9-0 decision. 

 

Yep.  Be kind of hard for the liberal Justices to support the ATF's claims.  Well, that is, if they have integrity that is.

[yurimodin]

don't worry, they will ignore the ruling just like Heller & Bruen

[MrTriple]

On 5/26/2023 at 12:01 PM, yurimodin said:

don't worry, they will ignore the ruling just like Heller & Bruen

It's definitely possible for the court to rule unanimously via a concurrence like they did in Sackett. Or even like they did in Caetano.

[yurimodin]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:42 PM, MrTriple said:

It's definitely possible for the court to rule unanimously via a concurrence like they did in Sackett. Or even like they did in Caetano.

I meant legislators, governors, and LEO