SCOTUS grants review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

[Paladin]

SCOTUS grants review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which it has been asked to consider overruling its 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natl Resources Defense Council, on deference to administrative agencies. Justice Jackson is recused from the case

[RoyGBiv]

Chevron must die!!!

Very good news that they will be hearing this.... Looking forward to arguments...

[The Annoyed Man]

It would be cool if Chevron deference was abolished, and the decision was extended to cover congressional misuse of the commerce clause outside of the founders' original intent. It would force congress to deliberately state their intent to twist constitutional meaning by passing legislation giving themselves the specific power circumvent the amendment process to do so…if it could pass both houses, 75% of the states, get the approval of the executive branch, and NOT get knocked off its collective keister by SCOTUS…AGAIN…

The days of congress deciding that the Constitution says something different that what the plain text as written by the founders says it means have to come to an end.

[RoyGBiv]

It would be cool if Chevron deference was abolished, and the decision was extended to cover congressional misuse of the commerce clause outside of the founders' original intent.

I also wish this.... might get the first part but the second part is not gonna happen.

The days of congress deciding that the Constitution says something different that what the plain text as written by the founders says it means have to come to an end.

Maybe... for now... only takes 2 vacancies and a handful of Rinos to change that.

[Flightmare]

It would be cool if Chevron deference was abolished, and the decision was extended to cover congressional misuse of the commerce clause outside of the founders' original intent.

I also wish this.... might get the first part but the second part is not gonna happen.

This isn't out of the realm of possibility with the Texas suppressor legislation passed last session that is currently in federal court.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0BATFE.pdf

If the BATFE pushes the interstate commerce clause as a reason for being able to regulate an item that is made and only used within Texas, I would love to see SCOTUS overturn Wickard v Filburn as a result.

[Bolton Strid]

It would be cool if Chevron deference was abolished, and the decision was extended to cover congressional misuse of the commerce clause outside of the founders' original intent. It would force congress to deliberately state their intent to twist constitutional meaning by passing legislation giving themselves the specific power circumvent the amendment process to do so…if it could pass both houses, 75% of the states, get the approval of the executive branch, and NOT get knocked off its collective keister by SCOTUS…AGAIN…

The days of congress deciding that the Constitution says something different that what the plain text as written by the founders says it means have to come to an end.

Yes, and for Pete's sake severely limit, nullify, strike as applicable “...as the Secretary [of whatever agency] may direct...” in every recorded statute (if I had a nickel for every time I read that...). That's part of the problem right there in creating space for arbitrary rulemaking.

From the filing by Loper Bright Enterprises: “Nearly four decades of judicial experience with Chevron have demonstrated that courts are incapable of applying its two-step Chevron framework in a consistent manner" - wow, does that sound familiar.

[Paladin]

I LOVE a lot of the wording in the silencer lawsuit:

Firearm suppressors were invented by Hiram Percy Maxim in the first decade of the 20th century. He also invented the car engine muffler and mufflers for loud factory equipment around the same time. Firearm suppressors and car engine mufflers operate on similar principles. Noise is caused by hot gasses exiting the muzzle of a gun or the exhaust pipe of an automobile. Firearm suppressors and car engine mufflers cause the escaping hot gas to swirl and cool, lowering the volume of the noise.

Firearm suppressors should not be regulated at all because they are widely accepted and very infrequently used in criminal activity. As Ronald Turk, former second in command of BAFTE, stated in 2017:

In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes….

While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the [National Firearms Act of 1934], the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the [National Firearms Act of 1934] is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the [National Firearms Act of 1934] should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the [National Firearms Act of 1934]. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating [National Firearms Act of 1934] classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the [Gun Control Act of 1968].

Raising revenue is not a sufficient justification for specifically taxing the exercise of a constitutional right. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 586–90 (1983).

The government cannot demonstrate that taxation and regulation of firearm suppressors (unlike dangerous items like hand grenades) is necessary for public health and safety. See United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 609 (1971) (upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934 with respect to hand grenades because “possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act. They are highly dangerous offensive weapons.”). The government cannot point to any harm that taxing and regulating firearm suppressors alleviates.

[Paladin]

Until 2008, courts did not view taxation of firearms as a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. But now it is.

There are no other examples of direct federal taxes on the exercise of a constitutional right.