What the Supreme Court's Nix on the Chevron doctrine means for food regulation
The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Chevron doctrine impacts food regulation, allowing businesses to challenge agency regulations. Concerns arise over risks to food safety, nutrition, and environmental protections, hindering regulatory development.
Read original article
The Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to uphold federal agency regulatory decisions unless specified by Congress, has significant implications for food regulation. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involved fishing and raised questions about the requirement for fishermen to pay for federal monitors. This decision allows businesses to challenge agency regulations, potentially impacting public health and safety measures. The ruling is seen as jeopardizing food and nutrition policies, including those of the FDA, USDA, EPA, and FTC. Concerns arise over the potential risks to food safety, nutrition labeling, dietary supplements, and environmental protections. The decision empowers companies to contest regulations they find inconvenient, shifting scientific and public health matters to judicial interpretation and hindering regulatory development. This development has been welcomed by the business community but is viewed as a threat to efforts promoting healthier and more sustainable diets. The decision is expected to lead to legal challenges against regulatory agencies, potentially impeding their ability to enforce and develop new regulations effectively.
Related
Supreme Court rules that the SEC's in-house rulings violate US constitution
The US Supreme Court ruled SEC's in-house proceedings violate jury trial rights, impacting fraud fighting. Decision criticized, SEC loses tool. Trend limits regulators' power, sparks debate on agency-judiciary balance.
Supreme Court limits use of SEC in-house tribunals
The Supreme Court ruled against SEC's use of internal tribunals in fraud cases, citing constitutional violations. Experts predict fewer enforcement actions due to required jury trials, impacting federal agencies' power and regulatory authority.
What SCOTUS just did to broadband, right to repair, the environment, and more
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference affects net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. This ruling challenges agency authority, potentially leading to more legal challenges and regulatory obstacles.
Supreme Court overtrns Chevron impacting net neutrlity, right to repair and more
The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron deference impacts net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. Federal agencies may face more judicial scrutiny, hindering rule-making. Challenges are expected in FCC's net neutrality efforts and EPA's climate policies. Regulatory hurdles may arise in tech regulation and market competition.
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens the Framework of Cybersecurity Regulation
The Supreme Court's ruling on the Chevron Doctrine shifts regulatory enforcement to courts, impacting agencies like FDA, SEC, and DHS. This change may increase litigation, create legal uncertainty, and affect regulatory consistency.
6 commentsIt's long been an open secret that our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder but it's very difficult for me to understand how the mask can be this far off and people don't know, realize, or seem to care all that much.
Too bad courts can't do things like admit expert witnesses.
"Casts a chill on developing new regulations development."
Good! Things are ridiculously out of control. Just look at the fiasco going on around raw milk right now - and that's just the tip of the over-regulatory spear.
"For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen"
Why? How does a lack of regulation prevent you from making your own informed, intelligent choices?
What a piece of crap fear mongering article.
Is this accurate? Or would the experts - currently sitting in regulatory bodies, or lobbying somewhere - transition to the courts, similar to how they are used in criminal cases?
Are the “batshit-but-here-for-life” edge case judges really going to be making decisions based on their personal non expert views? Sounds like negligence.
’The question is,’ said everyone else, ‘whether you can make originalism mean so many different things.’
Related
Supreme Court rules that the SEC's in-house rulings violate US constitution
The US Supreme Court ruled SEC's in-house proceedings violate jury trial rights, impacting fraud fighting. Decision criticized, SEC loses tool. Trend limits regulators' power, sparks debate on agency-judiciary balance.
Supreme Court limits use of SEC in-house tribunals
The Supreme Court ruled against SEC's use of internal tribunals in fraud cases, citing constitutional violations. Experts predict fewer enforcement actions due to required jury trials, impacting federal agencies' power and regulatory authority.
What SCOTUS just did to broadband, right to repair, the environment, and more
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference affects net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. This ruling challenges agency authority, potentially leading to more legal challenges and regulatory obstacles.
Supreme Court overtrns Chevron impacting net neutrlity, right to repair and more
The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron deference impacts net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. Federal agencies may face more judicial scrutiny, hindering rule-making. Challenges are expected in FCC's net neutrality efforts and EPA's climate policies. Regulatory hurdles may arise in tech regulation and market competition.
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens the Framework of Cybersecurity Regulation
The Supreme Court's ruling on the Chevron Doctrine shifts regulatory enforcement to courts, impacting agencies like FDA, SEC, and DHS. This change may increase litigation, create legal uncertainty, and affect regulatory consistency.