Interpreting Ambiguous Laws Reconsidered

Good News: Supreme Court Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 to upend the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking. Many conservatives blamed this law for the dramatic overgrowth of government and for excessive power given to unelected regulators. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life. This includes rules governing climate change, energy policies, toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and much more.

.The Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the so-called ‘Chevron Deference’ dealing a huge blow to the so-called ‘administrative state’ that have enjoyed

In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking.

Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years.

Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.

As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.

Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.

This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more.

The move hands a major victory to conservative and anti-regulatory interests that have looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the growing size of the “administrative state.”

The Biden administration defended the precedent before the high court.

As Mark Joseph Stern writes on X:

“Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the ‘administrative state’, the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless.”

“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.

He said it “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.’”

Further, he said it “is misguided” because “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

The liberals on the court are not happy:

“In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified.”

As Stern concludes:

“Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.”

Simply put, a massive win for the constitution…

Read full article here…

From an account on X by LudwigNeverMises:

https://x.com/ludwignvermises/status/1807062441135608138

Maybe now people will understand why I’ve been criticizing RFK for complaining about Sackett vs EPA, the case that set up the overturning of Chevron.

“Kennedy was complaining loudly about a 2023 Supreme Court decision blocking the EPA from extending enforcement of the Clean Water Act to marshlands.

This was the biggest constitutionally based pushback on a regulatory agency in over a century and RFK called it horrible.”

The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous statute, effectively giving regulators full lawmaking ability.

In the Sackett case, the Supreme Court made a historic ruling challenging the EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Water Act included marshlands as being “not reasonable” thereby removing the agencies authority to regulate the Sackett’s property.

This opened up the rest of the regulatory agencies “reasonable” interpretations up to question, leading to the reversal of the Chevron decision which gave them broad power to interpret law.

The Chevron doctrine in 1984 was merely codifying agency overreach which had already been happening for a century.

But its overturning makes that agency overreach explicitly unlawful, which undermines the entire unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy. And makes it the most significant case against the administrative state since it began to take root during the progressive era, over a century ago.

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/07/good-news-supreme-court-overturns-chevron-deference-in-massive-blow-to-administrative-state/

Legality of Geo-Tracking and Infrared Spying

Contact Tracing: US Supreme Court Already Has Ruled that Tracking People by Cellphone Is Unlawful

Pixabay
Contact Tracing uses cellphone GPS data to trace individuals and groups to a particular location, and your private data will be controlled by county officials. Counties are also considering using infrared technology to “look” inside private homes and buildings to determine the number of people who are gathered. However, the US Supreme Court previously has ruled that it is NOT lawful for the government to use such data to track individuals without a warrant. The Court also has ruled that a government entity must have a warrant to use infrared technology to look inside a private building. For government officers to use cell data or infrared technology to track people, they must have express permission from each person or a warrant for every individual. Otherwise, tracking will be an unlawful search and seizure. Attorney KrisAnne Hall wrote an open letter for citizens to share with county officials advising them of these rulings. She believes citizens would win civil-rights lawsuits based on these rulings. Dr. Pamela Popper is asking anyone whose cell phone has been used to contact trace them to reach out to her to participate in a lawsuit. -GEG

“…The use of cell phones by government entities to geo track people is not a new nor an unsettled issue.  Although it may be legal for a hospital or university to purchase such data from a cell phone provider for research purposes, it is NOT lawful for the government to use the data from data scientists to track individuals without a warrant -even though that data comes from a third party. In Carpenter v. U.S.,the Supreme Court held that a government entity MUST have a warrant to use cell data to geo track someone, even when that data comes from a third party.

Additionally, the Supreme Court held in Kyllo v U.S. that a government entity must have a warrant to use infrared technology to look inside a private building and to do so without a warrant is a violation of our rights to privacy.

For government officers to use cell data or infrared technology to track people, they must have either express permission from each person or a warrant for every single individual or that tracking will be an unlawful search and seizure. If our officials use this technology for contact tracing without warrants, regardless of where the data comes from, it will be tantamount to legal negligence. Given the recency of these Supreme Court cases it is highly likely that the counties would lose a civil rights challenge and the taxpayers will foot the bill.”

Read Attorney KrisAnne Hall’s full sample letter here:

https://makeamericansfreeagain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Model-Open-Letter-Re-Contact-Tracing-and-The-Supreme-Court.pdf

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2020/07/us-supreme-court-already-has-ruled-that-tracking-people-by-cellphone-is-unlawful/

SUpreme Court: Human Genes Cannot be Patented

 

Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection

Thursday, June 13, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that human genes cannot be patented. The ruling invalidates the thousands of patents that have already been granted on human genes, including the patent by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA breast cancer genes which the company says no one else can research or even detect without paying it a royalty. Click here to read the complete ruling.

“Myriad did not create anything,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. “To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

Well, exactly. This point should have been obvious to the lower courts, too, but in today’s world of corporate domination over seemingly everything, gene industry lawyers were able to argue that patent protection would somehow inspire more innovation and research. “The biotechnology industry had warned that an expansive ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment,” wrote Reuters.

But exactly the opposite is true. Gene patents restricted research and created medical monopolies that raised prices for consumers. Even USA Today seemingly gets this point, saying, “The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company’s patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions.”

The ACLU, which argued the case before the Court, said, “By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases.”

Corporate efforts to influence the Supreme Court ultimately failed

Had the Supreme Court upheld the patentability of human genes, it would have unleashed a horrifying new era of corporations and universities rushing to claim monopoly patent protection on every gene in the human genome. Virtually no one in the media covered this angle other than Natural News. We warned readers that everything found in nature could then be patented: blades of grass, insects, human ears, eye colors, hair colors… anything encoded with DNA.

We also pointed out that Angelina Jolie’s carefully orchestrated announcement of a double mastectomy following BRCA gene testing seemed timed to be part of a public relations campaign engineered by the biotech industry to influence the Supreme Court decision. We also challenged Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, which she never did.

It’s clear that powerful forces were at work behind the scenes to try to influence this Supreme Court decision, but they failed. Ultimately, the court discovered a moment of unanimous sanity… something we see so rarely that perhaps it deserves patent protection, too.

Huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries

It’s important to note that this decision is a huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, both of which relentlessly seek total domination over all forms of life on the planet through monopoly patent protection. The biotech industry, of course, would love to patent all seeds and food crops — even ones it hasn’t genetically engineered. And the pharmaceutical industry would love to patent every human gene, thereby claiming literal ownership over every human being born into the world.

Myriad Genetics tried every desperate argument to convince the court that human genes should be patentable by corporations. They even rolled out a whacky “baseball bat theory” which claims it’s an “invention” to decide where to start and end a gene sequence:

“A baseball bat doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree. But that’s still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat.” – Myriad lawyer Gregory Castanias.

That absurd argument claims that the mere deciding of which genes to snip out of DNA strands somehow makes all genes corporate property. Thankfully, the court did not agree with the baseball bat theory. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained:

“The baseball bat is quite different. You don’t look at a tree and say, well, I’ve cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I’ve got a baseball bat. You have to invent it.”

Huge victory for humanity

Ultimately, this decision is a tremendous victory for all humankind because it prevents the power-hungry, evil-bent medical and biotech corporations from claiming ownership over genetic sequences that already occur in nature.

This ruling means the biotech industry cannot patent common plants and animals, either. They can’t patent human body parts or human gene sequences. Yes, the industry can still patent synthetically-created genes, said the Supreme Court, but that’s something they would actually have to create rather than merely discover in an already-existing organism.

Today’s ruling also means that men and women will have access to far less expensive testing for gene sequences in their own bodies. Currently, women who want to test themselves for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes must pay as much as $4,000 for the test due to the monopoly “ownership” of those genes by Myriad Genetics. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled such patents are invalid, prices for the test should drastically fall over time as competition enters the picture. Ultimately, the test could eventually be offered for as little as $100.

The ruling also means that other companies can conduct research on those genes without first seeking permission from Myriad. This will actually spur more innovation, potentially leading to more advanced genetic analysis tests that might help people better understand their health risks (and hopefully encourage them to change their diets and lifestyle choices to avoid expressing those genes).

In a world that seems increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies and biotechnology insanity, this ruling is a breath of fresh air. It confirms that corporations cannot patent naturally-occurring things which have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and it confirms that when you have a child through an act of genetic replication, corporations cannot force you to pay royalties for your own child.

This is a decision of fundamental freedom, which is why I’m shocked the court actually ruled this way. This must be one of those rare moments of sanity in a Supreme Court that otherwise seems intent on destroying human liberty, dignity and justice.

Decision shows the important work of ACLU in protecting human rights against corporate domination

We must all thank the ACLU on this decision, as it was the ACLU which argued this to victory.

“Over the last 30 years, the U.S. Patent Office has issued patents on thousands of human genes, including genes associated with colon cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, and many other devastating diseases. The status quo meant that companies controlling gene patents had the right to stop all other scientists from examining, studying, testing, and researching our genes,” the ACLU wrote in a press release.

The ACLU further wrote:

We celebrate the Court’s ruling as a victory for civil liberties, scientific freedom, patients, and the future of personalized medicine. It also demonstrates the power of creating alliances and fighting for the public interest. The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed the case four years ago on behalf of twenty plaintiffs, including organizations representing over 150,000 medical professionals, geneticists, breast cancer and women’s health advocacy groups, and patients. Few thought we had a chance against the decades-long Patent Office practice as well as the entrenched industry position. But litigation can be a strong tool in producing change, never more than when diverse communities come together. Here, the medical, scientific, and patient communities united, and were soon joined by many others, eventually including the U.S. government. We honor the contributions everyone made to our success today.

The ACLU, by the way, has also filed suit against the NSA’s Patriot Act phone surveillance.