A bill to watch, that would essentially bring back the Chevron Deference doctrine

Introduced in the Senate a month ago, with an earlier House version. If passed, would greatly increase the power and lack of accountability of federal agencies. Won't pass unless the RINOs pass it.

Here is the House version of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1507

Here you can get to the Bill text, a summary and a press release. Immediately below is what Elizabeth Warren’s Senate website says the bill would do:

And below are some conservative remarks about the bill:

https://cei.org/news_releases/new-bill-would-restore-agency-deference-and-weaken-congresss-authority/

New legislation introduced today (which was July 24, 2024, not today) by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would reverse the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright and codify deference to federal agencies’ “reasonable” interpretation of statute as to whether regulation is congressionally authorized.

CEI General Counsel Dan Greenberg said:

“Senator Warren’s proposal reflects a serious misunderstanding of her responsibilities as a senator. It is as if she is saying ‘I will do anything except my job’ or ‘Stop me before I legislate again.’ For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine delegated policy decisions to independent agencies that were unaccountable and unconnected to Congress’s choices. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron — and returned policy responsibility to where it should be: Congress. Warren’s attempt to reinstate Chevron is a fundamental mistake that would, if enacted, weaken Congress’s decision-making authority.”

Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment Daren Bakst said:

“Once again, some legislators think agency bureaucrats are more important than the American people. Under the Chevron doctrine, Americans challenging an agency would have a hard time winning their case because the system was gamed in favor of agencies. Even if a court thought an individual had a better legal interpretation of an ambiguous law than an agency, judges would have to rule in favor of an agency so long as the agency’s interpretation was reasonable.

“If this makes no sense, then that’s because it doesn’t. It was unfair to the American public. It also ignored the role of courts. It is their job to interpret the law.

“About 80 years ago, when Congress passed the law governing the regulatory process, the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress made it perfectly clear that it was the role of the courts to interpret statutes. Now some legislators want to codify into law that unelected agency bureaucrats are more important than the people and the judges who are required to interpret the laws. This bill should be called the Deep State Protection Act.

“It isn’t even clear whether such a change would survive legal scrutiny since it isn’t the role of Congress to tell courts how to interpret laws. Regardless, such a proposal shows a disturbing disdain for representative government, basic fairness, and the U.S. Constitution.”