As a kid, I wanted to be a constitutional lawyer. Taking Constitutional Law changed all that. I realized that for the most part, what is constitutional is what 5 Justices say is constitutional. It\u2019s mostly, a play on words, and what your interpretation of the Constitution is.<\/p>\n
The recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has overturned the Chevron case, which served as a linchpin of administrative law over the past 40 years.<\/p>\n
The Chevron doctrine required courts to give a lot of leeway to an agency\u2019s construction of ambiguous statutes, even as to the scope of those agencies\u2019 authorities, so long as the agency\u2019s construction of the ambiguous statute was reasonable and thus a \u201cpermissible\u201d one.<\/p>\n
Loper Bright eliminates agencies of this presumptive deference, the power of interpreting these ambiguities will be with the judiciary. This will increase new litigation over interpretations of statutory language on the Federal level.<\/p>\n
I believe Congress and the agencies will need to be more careful in the drafting of laws and regulations, to limit the chances of ambiguities and court challenges.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a kid, I wanted to be a constitutional lawyer. Taking Constitutional Law changed all that. I realized that for the most part, what is constitutional is what 5 Justices say is constitutional. It\u2019s mostly, a play on words, and … Continue reading