Kirsters Baish’ Opinion & Speculation | ICYMI 6/19- This decision was handed down last month but the possible effect on the ideological makeup of the court, we thought it important to revisit.
Chief Justice Roberts has got to go. DavidHarrisJr.com has reported that “Just as he did for Obamacare, Justice Roberts threw the law aside and joined the four liberal judges in killing the citizenship question. There will be no such question on the 2020 census forms, and US taxpayers will continue to send vast amounts of cash to states with huge illegal populations. They will also not lose representatives to the disadvantage of conservative states. SCOTUS is sending the case back to the lower courts, and it is doubtful that the case will return before the questionnaires have to be printed.”
The Supreme Court has blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census for the time being in a major setback for the Trump administration.
The Washington Examiner reports, “Chief Justice John Roberts drives conservatives crazy with his habit of split-the-difference jurisprudence. But his final, short paragraph in one opinion today at least gave constitutionalists solid reasons for hope. Roberts disappointed constitutionalists by refusing to overturn the doctrine known as ‘Auer deference,’ via which courts defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of their own rules. He did signal, however, that he is quite open to re-examining a related doctrine called ‘Chevrondeference,’ via which courts defer to the agencies’ interpretation of statutory language passed by Congress.”
“Issues surrounding judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations are distinct from those raised in connection with judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress,” penned Roberts. “See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). I do not regard the Court’s decision today to touch upon the latter question.”
National Review further reports:
While Justice Roberts tried mightily to downplay the difference between the weakened version of Auer and Gorsuch’s call to overturn it entirely, the differences are still important. They go to the heart of the constitutional separation of powers. Under the Kagan/Roberts formulation, when an agency meets the new Auer preconditions, deference is still mandatory. Indeed, as Justice Roberts notes, “there is a difference between holding that a court ought to be persuaded by an agency’s interpretation and holding that it should defer to that interpretation under certain conditions.” Under the Gorsuch formulation, courts should consider agency arguments and agency evidence, but they do not have to defer to agency conclusions.