Chevron deference allows an administrative agency to interpret a law in any way that is not arbitrary/capricious, etc. So if there are X, Y, and Z possibilities, even if X is say, 80/20 more reasonable than Z, then the courts must defer and go with Z if the agency says so. This puts the enforcement and interpretation of a law in a single branch of government. Remember, legislative creates the law, judicial interprets the law, and executive enforces the law. Chevron deference allows the executive to both enforce, and interpret the law.
In Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch wrote both the majority opinion, and a concurring opinion. The majority opinion applied Chevron deference as required by precedent, however his concurring opinion was a criticism of Chevron. From the concurrence:
I think it would be more fair to make a rule that says: “If the law is found to be ambiguous in a particular case, it would have to be sent back to the legislature so it can fix the ambiguity in the law by amending it. If the legislature doesn’t do that in a reasonable period of time, the case will be dismissed.”
I think that would be rather unworkable. A particular case may be dismissed, but the law would still exist and the ambiguity would still cause disruption until resolved. The court is supposed to resolve questions of law. Your suggestion would neuter the court significantly as a co-equal branch of government.
The resolution of ambiguity should not take a long time by the legislature. Definitely a lot less effort than writing the law in the first place, and probably a lot less controversial.
But Bone’s original cite seemed to imply that Gorsuch would still have some issue even in the case where the agency’s interpretation was conceded to be reasonable. His followup makes it clearer that the question is one of *how *reasonable an interpretation must be deemed to be before judges are obligated to defer to it.
The argument against Chevron deference is that it is the role of the judiciary to interpret laws. Application of Chevron results in the peculiar position that an agency of the executive branch can change its mind and in doing so overrule a court decision.
Chevron is implicated in many administrative law cases, an area that Gorsuch has relatively little history of cases*. In the two significant cases where he has implicated Chevron the issues have revolved around Immigration matters, far removed from typical administrative law matters. Perhaps when faced with more typical administrative law cases he will be more inclined to support Chevron?
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is charged with most administrative law cases. It’s a part of the structure of the federal courts.
Yes its called common law. it predates the United States of America. There are ALWAYS ambiguities in the law. No law can address every conceivable situation with perfect clarity. The concept that the judiciary fills in the gaps and interprets the law is a pretty important part of a common law system (the one we have).
IMO, it’s surprising but not so shocking. These are a very small number of cases. I would guess these are all unique special circumstances, e.g. when there’s no where else for the kid to live and/or comes from a cultural background where these are accepted.
IMO, the only purpose those laws serve is to allow men to take advantage of young girls in such circumstances. We should get them off the books post haste.
I actually once knew a guy whose parents were from Morocco, who told me his grandparents got married when his GF was 16 and his GM 11. He said his GM would sometimes run away from home but his GF gave her candy so she would come back.
