SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron.
The question comes to the court in a case brought by a group of commercial fishing companies. They challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management plans.
Relying on Chevron, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the companies’ challenge to the rule. Judge Judith Rogers explained that although federal fishery law makes clear that the government can require fishing boats to carry monitors, it does not specifically address who must pay for the monitors. Because the NMFS’s interpretation of federal fishery law as authorizing industry-funded monitors was a reasonable one, Rogers concluded, the court should defer to that interpretation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @05:15AM (1 child)
I feel much the same way about border patrol agencies, in that they should be abolished and replaced.
There is a legitimate need to secure borders and ports of entry. This means making sure that anyone entering the country is doing so legally, that they pay any customs duties that they owe, and that they're not smuggling in contraband. That is not my objection.
I have a problem with border patrol agents operating away from the border. They claim the authority to operate within 100 miles of borders or ports of entry. I've heard many stories of border patrol agents boarding Amtrak trains that happen to be operating near the Canadian border and demanding that people show they are in the country legally. This is not a rare occurrence at all. They're not doing it to apprehend specific individuals who are known to be in the country illegally. It's a fishing expedition.
I have a reasonable expectation that if I'm entering the United States at a border or port of entry, that I will be subject to screening. Provided that this doesn't involve a warrantless search of electronic devices or similar abuses, this is something that I should expect and accept. However, as a law abiding person, I should be free from harassment by border patrol agents when I'm not entering the United States at a border or port of entry. I'm an American citizen who is following the law. I shouldn't have to prove to law enforcement that I'm legally in the country just because I'm riding a train that's fairly close to the Canadian border.
I believe there are similarities between the issues you raise about ATF. Border patrol agencies clearly have jurisdiction at borders and ports of entry. They've stretched their powers egregiously, setting up checkpoints well away from borders and ports of entry. The issues you raise about ATF involve the second amendment. My objection with border patrol agencies involves the fourth amendment. Courts typically apply higher standards of scrutiny when issues involve the Bill of Rights or the 14th amendment. I'd like to abolish the existing border patrol agencies and replace them with ones that operate lawfully. To be clear, I'm not opposed to border security. I do have a problem when border patrol agencies greatly exceed their authority and harass law abiding people.
I actually understand your objections to ATF. I hope you can understand why I have a big problem with border patrol agencies. My objections aren't about politics. They're about the jurisdiction of these agencies being stretched to absurd proportions.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @03:41PM
The problem is with air travel. If you can land a little Cessna in your home town, then your home town can conceivably be considered a "port of entry".
But, I agree with you. Border patrol should be mostly confined to 25 miles or so of the coasts, and the borders. 50 miles might work. But unrestricted access to the entire continental US, with virtually unlimited powers, is beyond anything reasonable. From what I understand, if Customs wants to search, they need no warrant of any type. They don't even have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion. That goes for public spaces, commercial spaces, and private homes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.