Your argument case 221219, leless versus the department of commerce. Marston martin as. Mister chief justice, may it please the court. For too long chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined stato inrpretation. It should be overruled for three reasons, first, cheon violates the constitution. Article 3 a pers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their stnd independent judgment. Chevron undermines that du. It reallocate interpreti authorities from courts to agencies and forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. In doingso, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. It mandates judicial biaan encourages agency overreach. By removing key checks on ecutive power it threatens individual liberty. Chevron also violates the apa, the most straightforward reading of section 706 requires review of legal questions. Congre put constitutional and statutory
In case 22451, local right enterprise versus raimondo. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, this case commercial fishing his heart. Space on board the vehicle vessels are tight and margins are tighter still. Therefore, for my client having to carry federal observers on board is a burden, but having to pay their salaries is a crippling blow. Congress recognizes much by strictly limiting the circumstances in which domestic Fishing Vessels can be battle with monitoring costs and capping them at 2 3 of the value of the catch. The agency showed no such restraint requiring monitoring of 50 of the trips and a cause of 20 of their annual returns. Nonetheless the court deferred to the agency because it blew view the statue assignment. There is no justification for giving the tide to the government. Both the apa and constitution of what his principles call for de novo review asking only what is the best reading of the statute. Asking instead is the statue ambiguous is fundamentally misgui
They dont think they are legitimate but to say that he should have gone to the caught chris when he is care was on fire and say i wish i could tell the American People this but i cant, that doesnt seem very plausible. I would like to end with a lightning round. We have been mostly talking about the cases that we love. We almost got the privilege. What do you think will go down . Where do you think the Current Supreme Court might deal with these questions and what they recommend likely rule in favor . No. [laughter] he is highly finale or with the Supreme Court. I think the recognition is less likely today than it was in 1973. And this i think the best thing for the press is to try to keep a decision away from this court. I think unfortunately at all of rises in the post9 11 era that makes it more difficult than you will nee want to look e case that didnt involve the press versus the humanitarian project that involved Material Support to see that there can be the issues that you can see