[EricDeb]

But who is making those regulations if congress doesnt write those specific regulations into law? Isn't that the whole point of this being overturned.. the FDA no longer can make regulations that arent explicitly outlined in a bill.

[Molitor5901]

The FDA can absolutely make regulations so long as they are done with the authority granted to them in the law. The problem has been agencies, such as the FDA whom I have worked with for going on a decade, have grossly overstepped their congressional authority. When challenged, the government's case is that the administrative regulators know best, and because of Chevron, the courts should defer to them, even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority.

This is not about specific regulations, it's about the authority to write those regulations and where the boundaries are.

[techostritch]

"even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority "

Chevron specifically says though that it should be within their authority and reasonable.

[Molitor5901]

Therein lies the issue: Regulators have gone beyond their authority, not only into what is unreasonable, but what is not backed by statute. Chevron said the courts should give deference, unfortunately that deference has gone too far.

Taking your point however, I think congress will eventually be forced to act on this. We do need some deference to regulators, but that deference has been turned into legislative abdication. This decisions sets that right.

When congress is ready to write a law that gives greater deference to regulators they will. Until then, in my opinion, this was a proper decision of government restraint.

[intended]

This is so transparently hopelessly naive that it’s endearing.

This is not the only case which will be brought to this court.

The point is to tie congress up, or make sure legislation passed is pro business.

The courts will defang the agencies. This will get you a repeat of 2008 and the bailout, and the net neutrality bill.

[techostritch]

“Unfortunately that deference has gone too far”

I don’t think I can support an objective idea that it’s “gone too far” when the decision was on ideological boundary. This was political activism not jurisprudence.