Skip to main content

Chevron deference on the way out?

Image result for owl of Minerva

An unexpected side-effect of the KING v. BURWELL decision, upholding the subsidy component of the Obamacare statutory scheme, may be that it weakens Chevron deference.

I mentioned this point (too) briefly in my own discussion of King v. Burwell in this blog. I'll quote myself here:

The court could have used Chevron reasoning, after all - it could simply have said, "in such matters of statutory construction, we defer to the administrative expertise of the relevant executive officials." That would have left the scheme in place, but would have left it subject to being overturned if the Republicans win the next election and the partisan loyalties of the relevant administration officials change. But it didn't.

What I should have said there was that the majority opinion, by Justice Roberts, actually went further than simple non-reliance on Chevron. the language of the opinion seems to limit the scope of Chevron.

"The tax credits are among the Act's key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on the Federal Exchange is thus a question of deep 'economic and political significance' that is central to the statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly."

 So there are matters too important, or central, to be left to Chevron. Justices will hereafter feel free to pull the meaning of statutes out of their own bowels without reference to administrative discretion. And the implicit distinction here, between really-important interpretive questions and merely-ordinary interpretive questions, seems likely to prove difficult to define.

Of course, in King v. Burwell there was no consequence of the setting aside Chevron to the thing decided: the government won, just as it would have won had this been treated as a Chevron case. But the precedential effect is a different matter. The first link above will take you to a Reuters article on how the court may well end up ruling against the government on some of these important cases where it feels newly empowered.

When is it that the owl of Minerva flies, Mr Hegel?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…