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.
Read original article
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Chevron Doctrine has shifted regulatory enforcement in the US from federal agencies to the judicial system. This doctrine allowed agencies to interpret laws based on their expertise, but the SCOTUS ruling now requires courts to independently judge agency actions without deference. As a result, agencies' cybersecurity regulations enforced through agencies like the FDA, SEC, and DHS will face challenges in determination and enforcement. The decision may lead to increased litigation against agencies and create legal uncertainty for regulatory bodies and industries. While some see potential benefits in forcing Congress to draft clearer legislation, others worry about the impact on timely adaptation to emerging cybersecurity threats. The ruling signifies a significant power shift to the courts and away from agencies, potentially affecting the consistency and fairness of regulatory rulings. The long-term consequences of this ruling on administrative rulemaking and cybersecurity regulation in the US remain to be seen.
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.
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.
9 commentsAlso, almost every regulation allows business needs to override security by just writing up something. Last 3 companies I've been hacked despite being SOC2/ISO27000 certified because there was that out of date, internet facing system due to be replaced in 2020, we promise.
Note that the Natural Resources Defense Council was the LOSING litigant in that case. (I don't understand why Chevron, the evil oil company, was defending the EPA's authority, but ....)
I mention that because many of the groups arguing now that eliminating Chevron deference is horrible argued the exact opposite in 1984.
On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress struck down the legal principle known as the Divine Right of Kings. This doctrine dates to 3300 BC and allows the King to use his wisdom and expertise to make the law.
This loss of this principle will make creating and enforcing rules on people much harder as there will no longer just be a single person who must be convinced but will often involve long negotiations between different factions of the governed to obtain their consent.
(well, maybe except for the whole AI thing)
Unless the justice system is broken and corrupt, this is not a bad news at all.
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.
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.