What the End of the Chevron Deference Means

It took forty years, but we have a triumph for freedom and the rule of law. July 03, 2024 [WEBSITE]( | [UNSUBSCRIBE]( What the End of the Chevron Deference Means SEAN RING Dear Reader, I won’t lie to you: before this week, I had no idea what the “Chevron deference” was. I thought it was some advanced legalese that didn’t concern me at all. And then I heard it: the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office… it was all there, as if Hamlet finally got on with his damn soliloquy. Freedom fighters gathered around the X campfire and bragged about how great it was that SCOTUS should make such a decision to end the Chevron deference. What was the Chevron deference? It was the pisspoor decision of the 1984 version of the SCOTUS that gave federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws. In plain English, it gave the agencies the license to consider themselves experts. I know what you’re thinking: why would anyone consider any government employee or agency an expert in anything but bureaucracy? I share your confusion. But that was the case. The agencies, God help us, were deemed experts by a nine-person judiciary that had no idea if those people were experts (highly unlikely) or not (a near certainty). Let’s do this properly. The Chevron Deference The Chevron deference, named after the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., was a legal doctrine that required courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that the agency administers. Why is any legislature allowed to create ambiguous statutes? I don’t know! Why would any agency interpret a statute that was ambiguous? This “deference” allowed them to interpret the statute without any real danger of lawsuits. Under Chevron, as long as the agency's interpretation was “reasonable,” courts were bound to accept it, even if the court believed a different interpretation was more reasonable. And what’s the definition of “reasonable” in this case? I don’t know! Yet, this doctrine has been the cornerstone of administrative law for nearly four decades, giving federal agencies vast power to shape the laws they enforce. Yes, they create and enforce, which, by my math, violates the concept of “checks and balances.” Of oourse, the doctrine has also been a magnet for criticism, with opponents rightly arguing that it undermines the separation of powers, erodes individual liberties, and promotes an unchecked administrative state. Last week, in a decision that sent waves through the Swamp, the Supreme Court overturned “The Chevron Deference,” as it’s now called. It’s huge – with a capital “Y” – because it marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the federal government and the people, and it couldn't have come at a more critical time. It’s a resounding victory for those who believe in limited government, individual freedom, and the rule of law. [ATTENTION: your name’s on my iPad.]( You could be one of them. What does that mean? You see, I just discovered that you haven’t been taking advantage of our most profitable trade ideas in our company. I made a quick video explaining this urgent situation and how to fix it. [Click here to watch my important message before Monday.]( [Click Here To Learn More]( The Rise of the Skynet State To understand why the Chevron deference was so problematic, it's essential to grasp the rise of the administrative state in the United States. Over the past century, the federal government has expanded dramatically, with a growing number of agencies wielding significant regulatory power. These agencies, staffed by unelected bureaucrats, have the authority to issue rules and regulations that carry the force of law, impacting nearly every aspect of American life. The Chevron deference was the Miracle-Gro for this expansion. It allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes without meaningful judicial oversight. This deference effectively shifted power away from the judiciary, which is constitutionally tasked with interpreting the law, and placed it in the hands of federal agencies. These agencies “Chia-petted” their way into bloated administrative disasters. The Erosion of Individual Liberties One of the most troubling aspects of the Chevron deference was its impact on individual liberties. By granting agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws, Chevron allowed bureaucrats to create and enforce regulations that infringed upon personal freedoms. This dynamic was particularly concerning in environmental regulation, healthcare, and financial oversight, where agency rules often had far-reaching consequences for individuals and businesses. For example, consider the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has used its Chevron-enabled authority to implement sweeping regulations on air and water quality. While some of these regulations have improved environmental outcomes, others have imposed significant burdens on industries and individuals without statutory backing. The same can be said for agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Gorgeous Gary Gensler’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which have used the Chevron deference to justify expansive interpretations of their regulatory mandates. This regulatory band-aid getting ripped off may send Bitcoin to six figures. The Threat to the Rule of Law The lack of accountability was particularly evident in cases where agencies issued regulations that contradicted clear legislative intent. Under Chevron, as long as the agency's interpretation was deemed "reasonable," courts were compelled to uphold it, even if it conflicted with the plain language of the statute. This deference effectively insulated agencies from judicial review, allowing them to operate with near-unchecked authority. A Return to Constitutional Principles The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron marks a significant step toward restoring constitutional principles and reining in the administrative state. This decision ensures agencies will no longer exceed their statutory authority without facing meaningful judicial oversight. In its ruling, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of powers, a critical principle of the Constitution. By curbing the power of federal agencies, the decision reinforces the idea that laws should be made by elected representatives in Congress, not by unelected bureaucrats. Implications for the Future The decision to restore the judiciary's role in interpreting the law will likely lead to a more balanced and accountable regulatory system. Federal agencies will need to be more careful in crafting regulations, knowing that their interpretations will face rigorous judicial scrutiny. And don’t get too excited, but this decision could pave the way for further reforms to reduce the administrative state's size and scope. Lawmakers and policymakers who advocate limited government and individual liberty will use this ruling as a springboard for enacting legislation that reins in agency power. Wrap Up This decision sends a clear message: in a constitutional republic, no one is above the law, not even the bureaucrats who wield regulatory power. For those who value liberty, limited government, and the rule of law, the end of the Chevron deference is a cause for celebration. It marks the beginning of a new era in American governance, one that promises to be more balanced, accountable, and respectful of the constitutional principles that have guided America since its founding. Oh, happy days! Have a wonderful July 4th tomorrow! All the best, Sean Ring Editor, Rude Awakening X (formerly Twitter): [@seaniechaos]( Rate this email Like Dislike Thanks for rating this content! Looks like something went wrong. Please try to rate again. In Case You Missed It… SCOTUS Shields King Donald I SEAN RING In a landmark decision that will reverberate through the annals of American legal history, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts he undertook while in office. Ok, that was a bit of hyperbole. All Presidents are shielded from prosecution for their official acts while in office, as long as they’re reasonable. No, Presidents cannot suddenly drone kill everyone because no liberal in the X-verse understands this verdict. And the left is positively hysterical. The Ruling: A Shield for the Executive The SCOTUS ruling passed with a 6-3 majority, effectively granting former President Trump – and oevery other president to come – immunity from legal actions that stem from his conduct during his presidency. The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasizes the necessity of protecting the executive branch from legal entanglements that could hinder its ability to function effectively. In plain English, because the government has a monopoly on violence, Presidents' actions aren’t all that wholesome. So, they need protection from the legal system to do their dirty jobs. Roberts wrote: Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. In essence, the Court argues that exposing a sitting or former president to legal jeopardy for actions taken as part of their official duties would set a dangerous precedent, one that could lead to a paralyzing flood of lawsuits and political vendettas. [New Biden Bucks Follow-Up Available Now]( Since posting the original Biden Bucks presentation online, millions of people have viewed it. Snopes and the Associated Press have even attempted to “fact check” and claim some warnings are false: Point being, the message has raised a storm and caused a lot of controversy. But in the time between the message and now, a lot of new developments have come to light. That’s why an update to the original prediction was just released… one which will likely be even more controversial. [>> Click here now to access the Biden Bucks follow-up](. [Click Here To Learn More]( The Dissent: A Cry for Accountability The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, paints a starkly different picture. Sotomayor warns that the ruling effectively places the president above the law, a notion antithetical to the foundational principles of American democracy. Justice Sotomayer wrote: Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding. This new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the nation. Then she descends to the hysterical: Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Except he’s not. This doesn’t cover unofficial or personal acts. But her dissent underscores a fundamental concern: the potential erosion of checks and balances. If the president cannot be held accountable for his actions, what mechanisms remain to prevent abuse of power? The Historical Context: Precedents and Deviations The concept of presidential immunity is not new. Historically, presidents have enjoyed a degree of legal protection for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. However, the extent of this immunity has always been a contentious issue. The landmark case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) established that a sitting president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages for acts within the "outer perimeter" of official responsibilities. This ruling aimed to protect presidential decision-making from the threat of personal liability. However, the SCOTUS decision in Clinton v. Jones (1997) clarified that this immunity doesn’t extend to unofficial conduct or actions taken before assuming office. The Court ruled that a sitting president could be subject to civil litigation for unofficial acts, as evidenced by the lawsuit Paula Jones brought against Bill Clinton. The recent ruling on Trump's immunity represents an expansion of presidential protections. By extending immunity to a former president for official acts, the Court has effectively broadened the scope of executive privilege. The Implications: A Precarious Precedent This ruling has far-reaching implications for the American legal and political landscape. By shielding a former president from prosecution, SCOTUS has set a precedent that may embolden future presidents to act with impunity, knowing they are likely to be insulated from legal consequences. Critics argue that this decision undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the judiciary. It raises uncomfortable questions about the balance of power and the ability of the legal system to hold the executive branch accountable. This ruling may also influence ongoing and future investigations into Trump's conduct. The decision could complicate efforts to pursue legal actions related to his presidency, from his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic to his involvement in the January 6 Capitol incident. The Political Fallout: A Nation Divided Unsurprisingly, the SCOTUS ruling has ignited political controversy. Supporters of Trump hail the decision as a victory for executive authority and a validation of his presidency. They argue that the ruling protects the office of the president from politically motivated attacks and ensures the stability of the executive branch. Conversely, critics decry the decision as a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. They view it as a betrayal of democratic principles and a sign that the judiciary is increasingly politicized. This polarization is emblematic of the broader divisions that have come to define American politics in the Trump era. The ruling is likely to deepen these rifts, fueling further discord and mistrust among an already fractured populace. The Broader Implications: The Republic at a Crossroads The decision may raise questions about the nature of executive power, the role of the judiciary, and the mechanisms of accountability. In a republican system, the principle that no one is above the law is sacrosanct. Yet, this ruling appears to carve out an exception for the highest office in the land, potentially undermining this foundational tenet. As the nation grapples with the implications of this decision, it must confront a sobering reality: the delicate balance of power and accountability is at risk. The ruling highlights the need for robust checks and balances and a judiciary that remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding the Constitution. Did the Left inadvertently create the monster they were hoping to corral? Moving Forward: A Call to Vigilance In the wake of the SCOTUS ruling, it’s imperative for the American public, lawmakers, and legal scholars to remain vigilant. The decision must be scrutinized, its implications debated, and its potential consequences addressed. Reforms may be necessary to ensure future presidents are accountable for their actions. Whether through legislative measures, constitutional amendments, or judicial clarification, steps must be taken to preserve the integrity of the executive branch while safeguarding democratic principles. Wrap Up Allegedly, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's immunity is more than a legal decision; it’s a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the limits of presidential power. As history has shown, democracy thrives on accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. It’s incumbent upon all stakeholders to uphold these principles and ensure that the American system of governance remains resilient in the face of challenges. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." But if there were no lawfare against Trump, would this decision even matter? All the best, Sean Ring Editor, Rude Awakening Twitter: [@seaniechaos]( ☰ ⊗ [ARCHIVE]( [ABOUT]( [Contact Us]( © 2024 Paradigm Press, LLC. 1001 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. By submitting your email address, you consent to Paradigm Press, LLC. delivering daily email issues and advertisements. To end your Rude Awakening e-mail subscription and associated external offers sent from Rude Awakening, feel free to [click here.]( Please note: the mailbox associated with this email address is not monitored, so do not reply to this message. We welcome comments or suggestions at feedback@rudeawakening.info. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, [contact us here]( or call (844)-731-0984. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized financial advice. We allow the editors of our publications to recommend securities that they own themselves. However, our policy prohibits editors from exiting a personal trade while the recommendation to subscribers is open. In no circumstance may an editor sell a security before subscribers have a fair opportunity to exit. The length of time an editor must wait after subscribers have been advised to exit a play depends on the type of publication. All other employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. Rude Awakening is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. Please read our [Privacy Statement.]( If you are having trouble receiving your Rude Awakening subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by [whitelisting Rude Awakening.](