The Biggest SCOTUS Ruling You Haven't Heard Of

[Landslide Lyndon]

Seems like a BFD to me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/the-biggest-supreme-court-ruling-you-haven-t-heard-of.html

The Supreme Court has yet to decide this year’s attention-grabbing cases on same-sex marriage, affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. But last week, a divided court decided Arlington v. FCC, an important victory for Barack Obama’s administration that will long define the relationship between federal agencies and federal courts.

The underlying question was this: If a law is ambiguous, who gets to interpret it? Federal judges or the agency that carries it out? Who interprets the crucial ambiguities in the Affordable Care Act, the Clean Air Act or the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act?

The divisions within the court defied the usual ideological predictions. In a powerful and convincing opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s majority ruled that even when the agency is deciding on the scope of its own authority, it has the power to interpret ambiguities in the law. Scalia was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.

In an agitated dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, contended that the courts, not the agency, must decide on the scope of the agency’s power. (Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately and only for himself.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting divide. I like cases which don't fall along the usual lines.

As for the subject matter, this is a complicated question. Of course the executive branch's very purpose is to execute the law, and executing a law implies giving a precise meaning to its ambiguous wording. On the other hand, you can hardly imagine that a federal agency would have complete power over interpreting federal statutes. I think the judges should be left with the power to check if the agency's interpretation satisfies criteria of basic rationality.

[minionofmidas]

I would think it's obvious that they need to interprete the law (since they couldn't, you know, actually do anything otherwise), subject to revision by the courts?

[t_host1]

 
Sounds about right, the power lays at the foot of a partisan, hence, elections are a full time war.  I think this is a fundamental victory for the future of self-governance; a purpose for the election has been reinforced.

[Torie]

When it  comes to statutory interpretation, the ideological divides are more relaxed. It is the Constitutional interpretations which trump statutory law, where the stakes are so much higher, and the power of the Court so much greater, that tend to be attended by ideological swords unsheathed and wielded.

[Orser67]

Weird how the article doesn't actually mention the precedent the court relied on, which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_deference

[Likely Voter]

well given a choice it seems more efficient to have various agencies do this instead of the courts and it is congress' fault for leaving the ambiguity.

Therefore the net result of this is that congress will now endeavor to define authorities in more detail, which probably means it will take laws longer to get through the process and create even more opportunities for laws to get lobbied, stymied and gridlocked. Great!

[bedstuy]

People for whatever reason don't care about administrative law or federal agencies.

But, I think this is clearly the right decision by Scalia.  Roberts' opinion would have opened a Pandora's box in the area of administrative law and confused the lower courts.