guest: chevron deference is this doctrine established in 1984 by the supreme court. goes to the question of who gets to interpret -- the primary role in interpreting statutes. in the chevron case, the court says if an agency's interpret ambiguous term in the statue, if it is reasonable, we the court will defer to the agency. when it happened conservatives like that were building because they liked what agencies were doing and liberals did not like it. now things have flipped. conservatives aren't unhappy with the chevron doctrine. liberals want to defend it. the court is considering abolishing that doctrine, returning that. is a case that arises out of rules in new jersey, this may be that the conservatives who have been after the chevron doctrine may say to themselves, it not doing work here. we have limited it so we do not need to overturn it. but certainly this is the court that is skeptical of the power of the administrative agencies, so one would expect they narrow the chevron doctrine even more. host: will in ohio on the line for independents. you're on with gr

get out of the statute itself, and i basically saying chevron is impeccable in certain instances because of things like the major questions doctrine where you wouldd think congress didn't wat to leave big decisions up to the agency. as a consequence, the last time the supreme court really has employed chevron obligors 2016. so it's been a while. next term the w sprinkle of the case before asking them explicit to overrule chevron. the case involvess a challenger by fishing companies to rule issued by the national marine fisheries service that requires fishermen for me to meet every and tasty fish, , the herring ce to pay for the cost of federal observers to monitor complex with fishery management plans. this is not nothing. they can sometimes be up to 20% of the catch. relying on chevron the d.c. circuit said that was a reasonable interpretation of the statute, even though, well, the statute does say it can require monitors to be present in on crowd fishing ships that itself is not nothing. couple of the place in the statute explicitly say fishman have to pay for that. but they don't in the part of the statute that applies to herri

guidance out of the session itself and by basically saying, chevron isn't applicable to certain instances because of the major questions doctrine you would think that congress wouldn't want to leave big decisions up to the agency. as a consequence, the last time the supreme court really has, you know, employed chevron, i believe, was 2016 so it's been a while. next term the supreme court will have a case before asking them explicitly to overrule chevron. and the case involved a challenge by companies to rule issued by the national marine fishery service that requires fishermen for me, an untasty fish, the herring, to pay for the cost of federal observers who monitor compliance with fishery monitoring plans, this is not nothing, sometimes can be 20% of the catch. and relying on chevron, that was a reasonable interpretation of the statute. even though-- well, the statute does say they can monitor to be present, that's not nothing. a couple other places in the statute they explicitly say that fishermen have to pay for that and they don't in the part of the statute that applies to herring fishermen. and so, there's already, there's

guest: chevron deference is this doctrine established in 1984 by the supreme court. s to the question of who gets to interpret -- the primary role in interpreting statutes. in the chevron case, the court says if an agency's interpret ambiguous term in the statue, if it is reasonable, we the court will defer to the agency. when it happened conservatives like that were building because they liked what agencies were doing and liberals did not like it. now things have flipped. conservatives aren't unhappy with the chevron doctrine. liberals want to defend it. the court is considering abolishing that doctrine, returning that. is a case that arises out of rules in new jersey, this may be that the conservatives who have been after the chevron doctrine may say to themselves, it not doing work here. we have limited it so we do not need to overturn it. but certainly this is the court that is skeptical of the power of the administrative agencies, so one would expect they narrow the chevron doctrine even more. host: will in ohio on the line for independents. you're on with greg s

and it may be that the conservatives after the chevron doctrine were not doing a whole lot anymore. this is certainly a court one way to expect that they would narrowly doctrine even more is on the line for independence you are with bloomberg talk about upcoming supreme court term. go ahead. >> yes thank you, thank you c-span. on the cfpb case are there other government agencies that are funded like the cfpb? is that funding mechanism is overturned what will happen and when can we expect a decision on that? thanks again. >> those are all really good questions. much of the argument was about the first question whether it is like any other agencies and other agencies will be affected. that liberal and conservative justices are saying you cannot distinguish from the federal reserve it's basically the same for the federal reserve also is not subject to year-by-year congressional appropriations it gets its money from federal reserve banks. so drawing that line the court was having that's our time with the challengers to the cfpb urged the courts to do that only ruling it is not silent the

whether or not the chevron deference doctrine exists, et cetera, about gerrymandering.r not, you know, one can legally gerrymander based on politics if not race. the wealth tax one stands out to me because it seems like the people that are testifying, it impacts them directly. do you, sir, believe and has your investigation revealed that part of the supreme court is for sale? that they are exchanging votes and rulings for largesse. >> that's at the core of our activity. the crisis of confidence. there is not the public confidence in the supreme court of the united states that the people deserve. how can the highest court in the land, the most powerful justices in america not have a code of ethics that they have to comply with? and we know that leonard leo is, as my colleague has put it, the spider in the middle of a dark web of money influencing the supreme court. money and politics, that's an important debate. money in the court system, really? but that's what we have here when billionaires are entertaining supreme court justices on their private planes, you know, at t

doctrine. administrative law when i graduated law school the soften century, there were two fundamental privileges. first, chevron was fundamental wall and firmly established in the second lien is the nondelegation doctrine was useful as u a fund for legal jokes. those may both be switched on the next five years. one of them as early as next year. it's reducing accountability and so the members of the lead are skeptical and once they get a hard look at estimating from political pressures and actually take some outside of the congressional design because a lot of political pressures are baked into the constitution. so for example, chevron, and i know some people stop hearing me now because you're going to be think about but what could be cited more. then that this. elizabeth hasthe last time the supreme court has employed chevron was 2016 so it's been a while.. next term the supreme court will have them ask to overrule chevron, local bright versus remain a mondo that requires fishermen to me and this could be 20% of the cut. they say that was a reasonable interpretation even though. they explicitly say the fisherm

basically saying chevron is impeccable in certain instances because of things like the major question doctrine. as a consequence, the last time the supreme court really has employed chevron was 2016, so it has been a while. before asking them explicitly to overrule chevron, the case involves a challenge, a rule issued by the national marine fisheries service who requires fishermen to pay for the cost of federal observers. and this is not nothing, it can be sometimes up to 20% of a catch. and relying on chevron, the d.c. circuits said that that was a reasonable interpretation of the statute, even though the statute does say it requires monitors to be present and uncrowded fishing ships, that is not so. but they don't and the part of the statute that applies to herring fishermen. already there is a negative argument there. the d.c. circuit judge not afraid to apply chevron unlike the supreme court. the fishing companies come to the supreme court to ask two questions. whether chevron should be overruled or the court should at least clarify concerning controversial powers, expressly but narrowly g