[psunavy03]

How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law. That's literally their job. If the parties before them feel that they need expert knowledge to render the right ruling, then they need to take those experts and either depose them or have them testify. Expert witnesses are a thing; this is not some new idea.

[adriand]

> How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law.

Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system. They are frequently about scientific matters, for example. What constitutes a threat to public health? What constitutes pollution of a waterway?

When Congress authorizes an agency to maintain, say, clean drinking water, it entrusts scientific experts to determine, based on the most up-to-date evidence, what constitutes a pollutant that is harmful to human health. We do not need Congress to pass a new law every time we get new scientific evidence that a particular chemical (say, PFAS), is harmful.

[psunavy03]

> Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system.

The laws have nothing to do with the legal system? That's a new one.

[stale2002]

Thats great and all. But if congress wants that power to be delegated to those agencies, then they should write a law to do so.

Thats all people here want. Whatever power it is that you think that agencies should have, try to pass a law to do that first.

[vkou]

They did do that, every agency exists with a mandate.

SCOTUS just decided that despite the madnates existing, being funded, and being regularly renewed, that's not good enough.

But they haven't defined how specific the mandate and laws must be. They can just, you know, keep shifting the goal posts until they get the desired result.

[stale2002]

> that's not good enough.

Then make a law saying that yes this is ok and good enough.

Problem solved.

[masklinn]

Because this is not law in terms of billy having stolen a bushel of apples, and the expert is not called on to evaluate the value of the apples in order to determine whether billy is below or above the line for a class 3 misdemeanour.

The statutes regulating agencies are generally broad signposts, giving the agency a mission statement and a direction but leaving it a large latitude to implement it and decide on the details. That latitude has a legal implication since the agency is generally responsible for setting and enforcing standards.

The Chevron Deference is the legal doctrine that since congress delegated its power to the agency as matter and implementation experts, the agency's policy decisions should be deferred to so long as:

- it's legally ambiguous aka congress has not answered the precise issue themselves

- it is a permissible construction of the statute

The entire point of the chevron statute is that it's not up to the judicial branch to set government policy, and if a problem is a legal void then they have no authority, and unless and until congress makes a specific decision the agency does.

[intended]

The courts are HIGHLY ideologically divided.

Take a look at the recent Murthy verdict and Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion.

The point is to avoid “experts”.