"The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron undermines our government's ability to promote worker safety, ensure clean air and water, and protect consumers," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Here’s my understanding as a layman, please correct me if I’m wrong.
SCOTUS could block the creation of a law if it was deemed unconstitutional, but even with a conservative SCOTUS, it’s unlikely they would in this case. As in many cases, SCOTUS didn’t overturn a law here, but rather changed their decision on the interpretation of the law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act. If congress passes a law that explicitly delegates certain powers to agencies, or codifies regulations that had previously been defined by an agency, that would be harder to fight since the APA, as far as I can tell, does not prohibit it. Warren’s bill is basically saying “if we can’t implicitly delegate power to agencies to create regulations, we should at least be forced to quickly review suggested regulations to prevent them from getting stuck in congress.”
Again, this is just my understanding as a layman. IANAL
There was the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder. A case in which SCOTUS struck a provision in the Voting Rights Act as they declared it was unconstitutional. If you can declare a provision unconstitutional, what would stop SCOTUS from declaring an entire law unconstitutional?
We’ve already seen a SCOTUS decide it can do anything it wants.
Again, they can, but it’s less likely. It really depends on how much the genuine threat of civil unrest and violence compares against whatever benefit they get from voting a certain way (which, in perfect world, would be nothing).
Truthfully I don’t think this particular ruling was incorrect or outside the reasonable extent of their powers. Do I think the timing of it was motivated by corporate and political greed? Absolutely. It’s abundantly clear that the decision, popular among conservatives, was meant to serve as a Trump “win” based on the justices he put in place (again, disturbingly contrary to the intended purpose of the SCOTUS). It’s also a potentially dangerous decision to make without any time allotted to get critical regulations codified by congress.
That all being said, while I in no way trust in the impartiality of the current SCOTUS, I do think repealing a law without fairly universal bipartisan support is a decent bit more extreme than what they did here. I think there needs to be a balance between genuine, concerning possibilities and doom-and-gloom panic.
With Marbury v Madison, the court gave itself the authority to interpret the constitution and the laws that congress enacts and the president enforces. These are statutory laws.
The other kind of law is court precedent. It is the law that the court creates based in the cases that come before it. It is inextricably linked to statutory law. Of course the highest court can overturn the law of lower courts or its own decisions.
Yes, the court can strike down laws.
The only way to get around the court is to amend the constitution itself. When amending, the language should be plain and clear so that SCOTUS cannot misinterpret it. Though there are several amendments that have been interpreted various ways over time.
Amending the constitution is a difficult process because it requires a lot of agreement between the members of congress/ senators and the states. See article V of the constitution.
The only way to get around the court is to amend the constitution itself.
That’s not actually the case. The Constitution says this about the court system.
Article III - Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Emphasis mine. The inferior courts have jurisdiction over all matters other than “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” For those, SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. SCOTUS handles appeals to the judgements of the inferior courts “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
We do not need to amend the constitution to rein in SCOTUS. Congress, under the this article of the constitution, Congress has the authority to create legislation that limits the power of the supreme court on all matters other than “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” Congress can increase the size of the court allowing the current president to add judges. They can add term limits and other limits to SCOTUS. The problem is that one party doesn’t want to fix the problem and that party is running the House and obstructing the Senate thanks to the filibuster rule. If we had a functioning Congress, we could pass regulations forcing the justices to abide by ethics rules. We could make it illegal for justices to accept gifts from billionaires.
Sadly, this will not happen without a Democratic controlled House and a Senate with at lease 60 actual Democratic Senators, and a Democrat in the White House. Still far more likely than a Constitutional Amendment, though.
There’s another built in way for Congress and the President to get around SCOTUS. Just ignore the ruling. The most permanent way is an amendment but ignoring it and enforcing the law anyways does work. For example Banks will freeze accounts if the regulator tells them they have to. They aren’t going to make a principled stand for you.
If a regulator enforces a law against you that the court has deemed unconstitutional, you can sue the regulator for damages with the expectation that the court will be on your side.
The more obvious “built in” option is for the president to pack the court.
Out of curiosity, what would stop SCOTUS being like “Nah, this law goes against the constitution”?
It’s my understanding that SCOTUS has the power to repeal laws. Wouldn’t the only real way to codify would to put it in the constitution?
Until SCOTUS declares amendments to the constitution to be unconstitutional.
SCOTUS “Mumble, mumble…found fathers…mumble, mumble, clearly unconstitutional…mumble, mumble, amendment not ratified correctly.”
Here’s my understanding as a layman, please correct me if I’m wrong.
SCOTUS could block the creation of a law if it was deemed unconstitutional, but even with a conservative SCOTUS, it’s unlikely they would in this case. As in many cases, SCOTUS didn’t overturn a law here, but rather changed their decision on the interpretation of the law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act. If congress passes a law that explicitly delegates certain powers to agencies, or codifies regulations that had previously been defined by an agency, that would be harder to fight since the APA, as far as I can tell, does not prohibit it. Warren’s bill is basically saying “if we can’t implicitly delegate power to agencies to create regulations, we should at least be forced to quickly review suggested regulations to prevent them from getting stuck in congress.”
Again, this is just my understanding as a layman. IANAL
There was the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder. A case in which SCOTUS struck a provision in the Voting Rights Act as they declared it was unconstitutional. If you can declare a provision unconstitutional, what would stop SCOTUS from declaring an entire law unconstitutional?
We’ve already seen a SCOTUS decide it can do anything it wants.
Again, they can, but it’s less likely. It really depends on how much the genuine threat of civil unrest and violence compares against whatever benefit they get from voting a certain way (which, in perfect world, would be nothing).
Truthfully I don’t think this particular ruling was incorrect or outside the reasonable extent of their powers. Do I think the timing of it was motivated by corporate and political greed? Absolutely. It’s abundantly clear that the decision, popular among conservatives, was meant to serve as a Trump “win” based on the justices he put in place (again, disturbingly contrary to the intended purpose of the SCOTUS). It’s also a potentially dangerous decision to make without any time allotted to get critical regulations codified by congress.
That all being said, while I in no way trust in the impartiality of the current SCOTUS, I do think repealing a law without fairly universal bipartisan support is a decent bit more extreme than what they did here. I think there needs to be a balance between genuine, concerning possibilities and doom-and-gloom panic.
They didn’t rule it unconstitutional, they ruled it incompatible with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. So the law could change it.
Granted, they could later try to rule it unconstitutional, but it would kill Looper Bright.
With Marbury v Madison, the court gave itself the authority to interpret the constitution and the laws that congress enacts and the president enforces. These are statutory laws.
The other kind of law is court precedent. It is the law that the court creates based in the cases that come before it. It is inextricably linked to statutory law. Of course the highest court can overturn the law of lower courts or its own decisions.
Yes, the court can strike down laws.
The only way to get around the court is to amend the constitution itself. When amending, the language should be plain and clear so that SCOTUS cannot misinterpret it. Though there are several amendments that have been interpreted various ways over time.
Amending the constitution is a difficult process because it requires a lot of agreement between the members of congress/ senators and the states. See article V of the constitution.
That’s not actually the case. The Constitution says this about the court system.
Emphasis mine. The inferior courts have jurisdiction over all matters other than “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” For those, SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. SCOTUS handles appeals to the judgements of the inferior courts “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
We do not need to amend the constitution to rein in SCOTUS. Congress, under the this article of the constitution, Congress has the authority to create legislation that limits the power of the supreme court on all matters other than “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” Congress can increase the size of the court allowing the current president to add judges. They can add term limits and other limits to SCOTUS. The problem is that one party doesn’t want to fix the problem and that party is running the House and obstructing the Senate thanks to the filibuster rule. If we had a functioning Congress, we could pass regulations forcing the justices to abide by ethics rules. We could make it illegal for justices to accept gifts from billionaires.
Sadly, this will not happen without a Democratic controlled House and a Senate with at lease 60 actual Democratic Senators, and a Democrat in the White House. Still far more likely than a Constitutional Amendment, though.
There’s another built in way for Congress and the President to get around SCOTUS. Just ignore the ruling. The most permanent way is an amendment but ignoring it and enforcing the law anyways does work. For example Banks will freeze accounts if the regulator tells them they have to. They aren’t going to make a principled stand for you.
If a regulator enforces a law against you that the court has deemed unconstitutional, you can sue the regulator for damages with the expectation that the court will be on your side.
The more obvious “built in” option is for the president to pack the court.
The US Marshals enforce court orders. The judges are powerless on their own and that’s by design.
If a portion of the government wholly stops listening to a part of the government that has authority over it, they call it a coup.
Nah it’s just a Constitutional Crisis. But we’ve been through this drill before. As long as you only ignore one or two key rulings it’s pretty mild.
Our branches of government are supposed to keep each other from going too far. It’s literally in the system design documents.