US SUPREME COURT Issues Order Yesterday Threatening Power of the ATF and Much More. . .

Steve48 said:

Actually, if I understand the issue correctly, it's the judicial system that hasn't been doing its job. The Chevron Doctrine, according to the video, is a prior decision made by the Supreme Court which allows regulatory agencies to interpret the law in cases where the law is ambiguous, and requiring lower courts to support their interpretation. It's the job of the court system to interpret the laws.

The agencies have been using the doctrine to expand their authority. My own version of the doctrine would be that regulatory agencies only have authority to the extent that Congress gives it to them clearly and unambiguously.

Click to expand...

I think that is precisely why SCOTUS has decided to hear this particular case! Although the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo arose out of a class-action lawsuit between a family of herring fishermen and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over "fishing rights," it applies directly to the "Chevron Doctrine" used by multiple federal agencies for decades to [re]interpret the Federal Statutes written by Congress. This has resulted in different applications of regulatory oversight by multiple Federal Agencies in several Federal Circuits, which SCOTUS does not like; the "law of the land" should be universally applied across the country. So apparently SCOTUS has decided this is THE CASE that gives them the best opportunity to clear-up this issue, which has resulted in ever-moving "goalposts" depending upon who's in the WH, but arguably got a lot worse under POTUS 44, where "weaponizing" any particular federal agency became almost commonplace and "We The People" have suffered because of it. Another thing that looks to be favorable to "We The People" and perhaps explains why SCOTUS decided to hear this particular case is Justice Brown-Jackson has recused herself from this because she presided over this case when she was on the D.C. Court of Appeals, meaning a SCOTUS decision will only be relying on eight justices vice nine. Here is another article on potential ramifications. So hopefully SCOTUS either overrules the "Chevron Doctrine" or at least clarifies that "statutory silence" in Federal Statutes written by Congress does not constitute an ambiguity that all federal agencies and the courts have relied on for decades to justify "deference" to the "regulatory" agency (ATF, EPA, FDA, etc.) to [re]interpret their "regulations" instead of what the statutes, written by congress and signed into law, actually permit. It is long past time that this bull-schiznit stops!

In another case that has implications on "The Chevron Doctrine" like the one I mentioned in the OP of this thread, and although it might not seem like it at first, according to Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner, yesterday posted a video headlined "BREAKING: SCOTUS JUST PUT THE ATF IN BIG TROUBLE. . ." outlining what he thinks will be far-reaching implications of this decision on all federal executive branch agencies, saying:

"Today [yesterday, 25 MAY 2023], the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v EPA issued a major ruling cutting back on the EPA's authority and by extension all federal executive branch agencies such as the ATF to enact laws via regulations. The Sackett opinion contains powerful language that can likely be used against the ATF in various contexts including in the ongoing legal fights over the bump stock ban and the pistol brace rules."

Click to expand...

Video here. SCOTUS decision (PDF) here.

Video Timestamps:
0:41 The ATF is In BIG TROUBLE
2:05 SCOTUS Grants Cert & What This Means...
4:45 Why This Matters To Us...
7:01 SCOTUS Statement
8:18 "Exceedingly Clear Language" & "Criminal Penalties"
11:10 Definition of "Vagueness" & 2 Types of Crimes
13:35 The Bottom Line.

The specific case arose out of a dispute between individual property rights and the EPA's interpretations (there have been several) of the "Clean Water Act" originally passed by Congress in 1972. However, this decision will likely have quite a curbing effect on many federal executive branch agencies that continue to move the goalposts and trampling over individual property rights, states rights, etc. for far too long; agencies like the ATF, EPA, etc. have continued to expand their "authority" for decades under "The Chevron Doctrine" (and others) to interpret laws on their own, usurping the authority of the courts (SCOTUS and Inferior Courts) to interpret the laws as granted in Article III, Sections I and II of the U.S. Constitution. So I am very encouraged by the statements in this SCOTUS decision such as this one on page 23 (and highlighted by Mark Smith in the linked video) that says, "First, this Court “requires Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.” We certainly live in interesting times!