The thing that bugs me about the coverage of the Chevron Defense is how many people think the deference is absolute. "So long as the interpretation is reasonable" is the critical part. There are already lots of avenues for litigants to challenge administrative decisions in the courts, ALJs or even more. In fact, the fishing boat litigant…
The thing that bugs me about the coverage of the Chevron Defense is how many people think the deference is absolute. "So long as the interpretation is reasonable" is the critical part. There are already lots of avenues for litigants to challenge administrative decisions in the courts, ALJs or even more. In fact, the fishing boat litigant seems to have done so: I understand the the fee he objected to has actually been dropped in his case.
The folks litigating "on behalf" of the fisherman are indeed doing no such thing. They are litigating on behalf of an agenda.
It's too much to hope that the Extremes should just modify the concept, to add better ways to challenge an administrative decision on existing reasons for challenge. If it isn't true already, awarding attorney fees to a prevailing litigant could allow greater access to using the existing exceptions to deference.
In other words, to freaking BALANCE the "unaccountable" agency's expertise with some further accountability in the courts, rather than let judges simple pontificate on issues of expertise they know nothing about.
The thing that bugs me about the coverage of the Chevron Defense is how many people think the deference is absolute. "So long as the interpretation is reasonable" is the critical part. There are already lots of avenues for litigants to challenge administrative decisions in the courts, ALJs or even more. In fact, the fishing boat litigant seems to have done so: I understand the the fee he objected to has actually been dropped in his case.
The folks litigating "on behalf" of the fisherman are indeed doing no such thing. They are litigating on behalf of an agenda.
It's too much to hope that the Extremes should just modify the concept, to add better ways to challenge an administrative decision on existing reasons for challenge. If it isn't true already, awarding attorney fees to a prevailing litigant could allow greater access to using the existing exceptions to deference.
In other words, to freaking BALANCE the "unaccountable" agency's expertise with some further accountability in the courts, rather than let judges simple pontificate on issues of expertise they know nothing about.