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: 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.