"You can't beat City Hall"-- did the Supeme Court just say you might have a fighting chance after all, in its defeat of the 1984 Chevron Doctrine?

Just a quickie, and remember I am not a lawyer, only a litigant

As you know, the way our system works is that the Legislative branch, Congress, passes laws for the nation, then the Executive branch agencies (federal agencies whose leaders are appointed by the President, though most must be approved by Congress) then issue rules and regulations that are (supposedly) the means by which Congress’ laws are to be carried out in the real world. The Judicial branch can then interpret the laws. But the 1984 Chevron Doctrine dreamed up by an earlier Supreme Court served to block the Judicial branch from interpreting the rules and regulations issued by the Executive branch agencies.

Here is a cool site that explains these terms and more, including at the state and local level:

Understand the Differences and Similarities:

Statutes

Acts

Ordinances

Regulations

Rules

Codes

Policies

Opinion

Case Law

Back to Chevron. Twenty years ago, a group Col. Tom Rempfer and I worked closely with (lawyers and activists) challenged the anthrax vaccine license. We actually won our case against the anthrax vaccine, and Judge Emmett Sullivan revoked the license, requiring FDA to offer a comment period and reevaluate the data, as there were no data on the vaccine’s usefulness against inhalation anthrax—which was the reason it was being required for all reserve and active duty military service-members. In other words there existed no efficacy data for the indication for which the USG was mandating the vaccine. And furthermore the vaccine had been licensed improperly by NIH back in 1970 and reviewed improperly by FDA in 1985.

FDA did not obtain new data on inhalation anthrax. Nor did it address 40 points I made about the many reasons why the vaccine did not meet FDA’s standards for licensure. Instead, it issued a comment period, failed to respond to the substantive comments, waited about 18 months and then brazenly reissued the license. Our group appealed this decision.

However, our new judge dismissed the case. There was no examination whatsoever of the merits of the case. How could that happen? CHEVRON. The judge simply said that (and this is according to the 1984 Supreme Court’s Chevron Doctrine) the FDA had “deference.”

What that means is exactly what the UN Undersecretary for Communications Melissa Fleming (an American) said at the World Economic Forum 2 years ago: “We own the SCIENCE.” The bureaucracy gets to say what the science is. Not you sniveling scientists and doctors who dare to presume you understand the science.

With Chevron gone, will we finally get to discuss the science in US courts? It looks promising.

From the Epoch Times:

The Supreme Court in a vote of 6–3 overturned the so-called Chevron deference, a bureaucracy-empowering judicial doctrine that critics say led to the explosive growth of the U.S. government in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the June 28 case. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The 40-year-old judge-invented doctrine holds that an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference unless Congress has said otherwise.

The doctrine provides a legal underpinning for the modern administrative state, which critics deride as an illegitimate fourth branch of government.

In the landmark ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, the court held that while courts “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” where courts find Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue and “the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”

Epoch explained the 2 cases that brought about this decision, concluding:

… On Jan. 17, Relentless Inc. attorney Roman Martinez told the justices that the Chevron deference must be overruled. “For too long, Chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation,” he said.

“Chevron violates the Constitution. Article III empowers judges to say what the law is … [and] to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates interpretive authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons.

“In doing so, Chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of Congress. It mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach, and by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty.”