Supreme Court to hear major case on limiting the power of federal government
Source: CNN Politics
Washington CNN — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider long held precedent and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies in a case that can impact everything from how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.
Conservative justices have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American businesses and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal power but the new case would allow them to take a much broader stride.
The justices announced they would take up an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels. Their action means they will reconsider a 1984 case – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law.
Conservatives on the bench have cast a skeptical eye on the so-called Chevron deference, arguing that agencies are often too insulated from the usual checks and balances essential to the separation of powers. “The idea that agencies should be allowed to resolve ambiguities in statutes that they enforce has been a central feature of modern administrative law,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/politics/supreme-court-chevron-deference-conservatives-power-of-agencies/index.html
Full headline: Supreme Court to hear major case on limiting the power of federal government, a long-term goal of legal conservatives
As a note, there are agencies like the FDA, who set up and have successfully deployed "User Fees" for regulated industry over the past 30 years, to help to fund the review of applications for approval and some post-market monitoring of multiple covered products - i.e., drugs (new prescription and generics), medical devices, etc. I believe the fee is based on how many FTEs (Full Time Equivalents) are required for the review. It appears that if the extremist SCOTUS ditches that idea, a different regulatory structure that was always critically underfunded prior to enacting those fees (and not related to fisheries), could collapse. I'm not versed on the fisheries situation so don't know what the original law was for that.
Of course it is Congress (Legislative Branch) that creates these laws, not the Executive Branch.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Chaos will ensue but billionaires will be able to poison and cheat us at will, so all good.
I'm applying for a visa to emigrate. Had enough and it's only going to get worse.
p.s. my idiot MAGA neighbors, who have been heavily propagandized to believe "government can't do anything right," will think this is great news (except that, being low information, they don't understand how or why this decision will happen). Catastrophically ignorant. Gaaahhhh.
Oh, and this is the most important reason for the billionaires to buy the sc. They don't care about gunz or social issues other than as means to keep the proles fighting amongst themselves. Getting rid of taxes and regulations is the real motivation for these sociopaths.
And people wonder why bills are literally thousands of pages long while the GOP enjoys strolling down the aisles of a congressional chamber pushing a cart with a printed stack of pages from a particular bill. 
The old "implied" vs "expressed" power debate. 
