[parhamn]

> So Congress delegated further rule making

Couldnt they just do this formally? Afaict scotus didnt rule it's unconstitutional for congress to explicitly defer, but the derefence, which originated in court precedent, isn't good.

Theres nothing stoping congress from explictly defering either via act or in the act. Right?

[bombcar]

Read the judgement, it's pretty simple.

All this says is that if Congress defers something to a branch, and there is ambiguity, and it comes in front of a judge, the judge does NOT have to accept the branch's interpretation of the ambiguity, and can instead judge it as judges do.

Chevron said that if the branch had a reasonable interpretation (e.g, not batshit insane like saying "no arsenic in water" means "at least ten pounds per gallon of arsenic in water") then the judge should defer to it. Now the judge can but does not have to defer to it - if he pushes back, Congress can clarify the law.

This has been done many times in the IRS, where people find a "loophole", the IRS tries to patch it themselves, the courts say, yeah, nah, and then Congress amends the law to remove it.

[throw0101c]

> All this says is that if Congress defers something to a branch, and there is ambiguity, and it comes in front of a judge, the judge does NOT have to accept the branch's interpretation of the ambiguity, and can instead judge it as judges do.

So the Judicial branch has now taken on the task of determining policy, contra what was said in Chevron:

> When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura...

So if Congress makes something explicit it is a policy by The People (through their elected representatives), and if there's some ambiguity it might be done purposefully by The People's representatives (Congress), with the explicit and implicit idea to have an agency deal with it. The agency is run by The People's Executive choice (President) or administrators (Secretary, Director, etc) agreeable to The People's representatives (via confirmation hearings).

[parhamn]

It isn't simple. The judgement states that broad implied deference to the agency of the act in question, per Chevron, is incorrect and the courts decide in the those case.

There were a ton of arguments that interpretation, in general, is an Article 3 right of the courts. Though, I'd assume if congress explicitly granted interpretation to the specific agency of the act, we'd have a separate case on whether they're allowed to do that (explicitly defer).

[p_l]

A textualist interpretation would be that indeed congress is now stopped from that, as anything that isn't described without doubt in an act of congress is now up to court to decide, not delegated agency.