Chevron didn’t establish clearer guidelines.
It was weaponized by both parties to create defacto laws without proper legal procedure. It should’ve been unconstitutional from the beginning as only Congress can make laws. Regulatory agencies are far easier to control, generally contain administration-friendly plants, and are not expected to provide any justification for their decisions. The result is laws that change as the wind blows, confusions, and rights restrictions done by people who should have no business doing so. The “reasonable interpretation” rule allowed Congress to completely defer to them and force citizens to spend tremendous capital getting a case to the Supreme Court.
Chevron’s overturn was objectively a huge win and hardly a “rogue” decision. That editorialization is not a fair representation of the problems it has caused when regulatory agencies begin attempting to regulate constitutional rights. It was overly vague and gave far too much power to people who cannot be trusted with it.
We shouldn’t need Chevron Deference to make laws that protect people from harm done by corporations. Period. If we do, it’s a failure of Congress to do their jobs and a mechanism should be in place to have a “reset button” (like many other countries when they form a government).
hang on, in what way are regulatory agencies not expected to provide justification.
That is very nearly the lion's share of the work these agency do, is to justify the regulations and the decisions
Expecting Congress to directly regulate the minutia of industry, medicine or technology is absurd, these are giant categories with their own subfields that need specialized technocratic leadership.
It’s pretty clear that rule making and adjudication are in the preview of the executive branch. Congress and courts can’t possibly make laws and hold trials for every possible minor situation.