by In recent years, bureaucracy has become a reign of terror within the USA. Departments, agencies, and administrations have increasingly been used as tools to grab essential civil liberties. The Amish farmer case, which I covered in-depth on this channel, highlights the extent to which bureaucracy (both state and federal) has taken hold of the food industry. (If you missed any part of that coverage, I will link the playlist in the description of this video.)
Cases like that of the Amish farmer leave many of us asking, “How have administrations and unelected officials attained so much authority over private citizens and businesses?”
The answer lies largely in what is known as the Chevron Deference, a legal doctrine that was the result of a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. This doctrine mandated that judges within federal courts submit (or defer) to an agency’s interpretation of silent or ambiguous statutes within a law, so long as the interpretation was deemed reasonable.
Fortunately, 12 weeks ago, after 40 years of precedence, the Chevron Deference was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional and “fundamentally misguided.”
However, 40 years of precedence was enough time to leave a serious mark on patterns and behaviors within the U.S. government. Behaviors that, thankfully, are no longer hedged by legal precedence but must be reshaped by the demands of a properly educated American public.
This video is going to tell you what the Chevron Deference was for 40 years, how Chevron covertly funneled a dangerous level of power to the executive branch, and finally, I am going to suggest what will be required to turn what is now (in my opinion) neutral ground into positive territory.
I will also break down how this will impact food freedom cases like that of the Amish farmer.
What is the Chevron Deference?: Chevron v. NRDC
The Chevron Deference was established in 1984, in a case involving Chevron Oil and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC). Ironically (in light of my previous upload on the hidden dangers of climate control policy), the case involved the regulation of emissions from Chevron oil facilities. The NRDC was enforcing the Clean Air Act of 1977, but that particular act contained fuzzy (or ambiguous) language with respect to how emissions were to be regulated.
Long story short, that lawsuit resulted in the Chevron Deference and its subsequent legal doctrines. The ruling stated that when a law or statute is ambiguous or silent, federal courts must give deference to a government agency’s interpretation of what that silence or ambiguity means. As a quick definition, deference means “to submit to.” So, judges in federal courts were obligated under Chevron’s precedence to submit to a federal agency. This created problems on several levels, one of which being the fact that federal agencies are often the ones filing suit against individuals and businesses. For a litigant to receive deference is technically a bias.
Not only were federal agencies allowed to interpret, but they were also permitted to create rules around silence and ambiguity within the law.
You are probably already seeing it, but the Chevron Deference has been labeled “the Lord Voldemort” of administrative law. While I have never watched the movie (nor would I ever endorse it), a quick Google search revealed to me what people meant by that label.
Chevron became a picture of administrative evil, ultimately funneling power to the executive branch that it was never intended to have.
How the Chevron Deference Became a Power Grab
And here is how: (Keep in mind, this is a very simplified look. If you would like a technical analysis, I would recommend Epoch TV’s 1-hour interview with Philip Hamburger, an American legal historian and a scholar of constitutional law.)
As we all learned in middle school, power within our federal government is divided into three branches:
- The Legislative Branch is where Congress resides. Elected officials from each state come together to discuss and agree upon laws or rules. The Constitution is the parameter within which new laws or rules are made.
- The Executive Branch is where the President resides. The President and his team give the stamp of approval to the laws that come out of the legislative branch.
- The Judicial Branch is where judges and the court system reside. Here, the laws are enforced at the ground level. Judges (elected officials) make judgments as to how to apply the law on a case-by-case basis.
These three branches work together under the authority of the United States Constitution and the accountability of the American people (who can vote them in or out during various election cycles).
Chevron became ugly because it funneled legislative and judicial power to administrations within the executive branch, creating a covert system of centralized power at the federal level.
Three branches of federal government still existed outwardly, but the executive branch gained a level of power it was never intended to have.
And in case it is not entirely clear how, here is a quick summary:
- Where Congress (the legislative branch) used to hold the somewhat exclusive right to make laws and write rules, under Chevron, federal agencies now had permission to make rules where the law was silent or ambiguous.
- Where judges in the court system (the judicial branch) are tasked with executing judgment without bias, under Chevron, judges were obligated to defer to federal agencies in the courtroom “so long as their interpretation was reasonable.”
According to SCOTUSBlog.com, “Chevron has become one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times since 1984.”
Chevron not only provided a strong legal precedent for bureaucracy within the court system but, according to Philip Hamburger, it reshaped the behavioral patterns of Congress.
Hamburger claims that Congress has become “infantilized,” as for four decades it has “handed off” its responsibility for rulemaking and interpretation to various federal agencies.
The Chevron Doctrine has profoundly influenced our modern political climate. To again quote Hamburger: “When all of the regulatory power of the federal government is in the hand of agencies under some degree of control or restraint by the White House, then everything turns in a presidential election. Too much turns on it. This is one reason why presidential elections have become warfare.”
Impact on Food Freedom Cases
Now, keep in mind, Chevron was a federal ruling, which means it technically has no precedence in state courts. For this reason, it will not provide any direct relief for state cases like Pennsylvania v. The Amish Farmer.
However, I suggest that there has been tremendous spillover to the state level. I base this on sitting in a courtroom in Pennsylvania last February and watching a commonwealth judge defer to the Department of Agriculture’s interpretation of a raw milk permit.
Neutral Ground Into Positive Territory
Now this brings us to today:
As of June 2024, the Chevron Deference was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the USA, after two private fishing boats in New England challenged regulations from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The regulations required the private boats to carry and pay for observers who would collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.
The private fishing boats initially lost, as under Chevron’s precedence, deference was given to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The ruling was appealed and taken to the Supreme Court, where Chevron was struck down as being unconstitutional and “fundamentally misguided.”
This is a major victory, and to an extent, bureaucracy has been dethroned. However, bureaucracy still exists—and in the proper context, it is a legitimate player in government. It should not be making rules or receiving bias in the courtroom, but administration does have a legitimate function in the executive branch.
But here is what I would submit for conversation: We are now on neutral ground from which advancements for either the negative or positive can be made.
Here is what I mean: I believe that the administrative state (bureaucracy) will be very quick to re-enthrone itself and re-establish its authority to make rules and influence the judicial system.
Unless individuals and businesses become proactive in putting legal counter-pressure on the encroachment of federal agencies, similar to how those private fishing boats challenged the Marine Fisheries Service, we will lose this ground.
We will also need to be proactive in awakening Congress to its obligation to not only write the law but to provide Constitutional definitions where ambiguity and silence present themselves.
That is, in my opinion, the immediate action that will be required to turn this ruling into a win. Give me a thumbs-up if you agree, and leave a comment with your opinion: Is Chevron a major win, or is it a return to neutral? I look forward to reading your comments.
And if you missed it, watch this video next, where I discuss the negative impact of climate control policies and the knowledge necessary to combat it.
Leave a Reply