Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine – Reining in the Deep State


Posted originally on Jul 1, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference in a 6-3 vote in a major push toward eliminating government overreach. The 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council has permitted government agencies to implement the rule of law, bypassing the federal judicial system.

Deep State 1

Individuals and Corporations have been at the mercy of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was permitted to implement regulations over entire industries as it saw fit. That violated the Constitution, for the laws are to be made by the PEOPLE, and Congress should NEVER delegate that power to an unelected agency that creates the Deep State. Conservatives have attempted to overturn the Chevron doctrine for years, as it simply places the law in the hands of unelected government officials.

Rosevelt FDR Drawing

Justice Roberts said Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (1946), which dictates how government agencies may issue and develop regulations. The APA was intended to inform the public of how and why rules were implemented and provided a platform for public participation. It also created a clear standard for proceedings and restated judicial review. The APA was implemented after Franklin D. Roosevelt created an onslaught of public agencies through the New Deal. Chief Justice Roberts further stated that the Chevron doctrine was “misguided” as it made the rule of law ambiguous.

For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has corrupted every aspect of American life, from health care to labor laws. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) deferred to public agency interpretations of the law, which was outrageous that non-elected and non-judges make the law. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the authority to control what Americans content Americans could consume, and they abolished the Fairness Doctrine with no regard to how that would harm society with fake news.

The Food and Drug Administration (FD) had the authority to control what it deemed safe for Americans to consume. With COVID-19, they prohibited anyone from advocating drugs that worked all because funding comes from the Pharmaceutical companies. This has by no means benefited society and this decision was so necessary to restore some accountability.

2024_06_29_11_04_46_Justices_limit_major_SEC_tool_to_penalize_fraud_SCOTUSblog
7th Amendment

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had the ability to define American financial markets. The SEC has just been overruled where they were charging people, imposing penalties, and refusing to allow what the Constitution supposedly guaranteed – the right to trial by jury under the 7th Amendment.

Absolutely every facet of American life is partially controlled by unelected government agencies who need not abide by a uniform rule of law before implementing regulations. What the SEC has been doing has rejected the Constitution for decades. Once you hand this unbridled power to any agency, you get tyranny. What is WRONG WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM is that whenever Congress or an agency write any law or rule, they should go to court to establish that it is Constitutional. Instead, they pick on people who cannot afford lawyers to expand their tyranny, and it is always our burden for someone to challenge them and make it to the Supreme Court. That is outrageous.

The Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to the administrative Deep State. It is ABOUT TIME! This aims to de-politicize government agencies to control our very way of life. Executive branches need to be reined in dramatically, especially at a time when industries such as the EPA are driving entire sectors into the ground, outlawing gas stoves that I grew up with, and I think I’m still alive. The liberals in favor of Chevron believe Congress should be trusted to defer power to agencies, which they believe will rule based on expertise, laughably unbiasedly.

The reason I say we need a Constitutional Court that Congress and agencies go to first for PERMISSION to create the rule of law is that they get to rule the country by sheet tyranny. In my case, they seized the foreign companies, denied using any funds, would not allow them to answer complaints, and installed a receiver, Alan Cohen, who refused to defend the companies or even answer a complaint. This amounted to violating the 5th Amendment, illegally taking my companies, and denying them any right to defend themselves.

They threw me in contempt of court using 28 USC 1826, where the statute states the maximum time is 18 months, not 7 years, and that I was supposed to have a right to appeal in 30 days, which was NEVER honored by the Second Circuit. The very prison records show the contempt was renewed every 18 months, and the ONLY way I was ever released was when I finally made it to the Supreme Court, and they ordered the government to explain. They released me and told the Court the case was then moot. If they can do this to me, steal the pensions of 240 employees, they can do it to anyone.

SCT 2020
28 use 1826
BOP Screen 18 months

ICYMI – Two Significant Positive Rulings from Supreme Court – Fischer Case (J6) and Chevron Reversal


Posted originally on the CTH on June 29, 2024 | Sundance | 240 Comments

In a major 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has finally addressed the expansive regulatory use of executive agencies to create law through interpretation.  The 40-year-old Chevron ruling granted the executive agencies of government the ability to interpret laws and apply restrictions/regulations based on their own rules and definitions therein.

The Supreme Court put the judicial branch back into the equation by ruling that courts will decide what laws apply when the legislation is ambiguous on detail.  This shift in prior precedent could have major ramifications.  [MORE AT SCOTUS BLOG]

In another big case, the court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer a Pennsylvania police officer charged in the January 6th protest with “obstructing an official proceeding.”  [FULL RULING HERE]

The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and as noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute … has been applied in roughly 350 J6 cases; it also represents two of four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related criminal indictment of Donald Trump in Washington.”

Julie Kelly – […] In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “c2” subsection is tethered to the “c1” subsection that addresses tampering with a record, document, or “object.”

Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the dissent (!) joined by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Today’s decision means hundreds of Americans have been wrongfully prosecuted by Attorney General Merrick Garland as he insists his department is dedicated to upholding the “rule of law” and pursuing justice “without fear or favor.” (read more)

The DOJ now has to figure out how it will respond to losing the majority charge in many of the J6 cases.  However, the DOJ immediately responded with the following press release:

MAIN JUSTICE – The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.  

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.” (read more)

Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the Supreme Court was correct in its ruling to make it harder to charge Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction.