Will Chevron Deference rein in the ATF

[5pins]

For the past few months, I have been hearing about Chevron Deference vs the Rule of Lenity for how the ATF interprets law.

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is Chevron Deference was “created” in 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts should follow an agency’s interpretation of a law that is ambiguous. This is what the ATF is saying gives them the power to change the definitions of federal law.

The rule of Lenity on the other hand is supposed to make the court interpret ambiguous laws in favor of the defendants or plaintiffs (if challenging a law) if criminal penalties are involved.
On June 15 the Supreme Court overturned a lower court in a case called American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra. Many are saying that this decision has, for the most part, eliminated Chevron Deference.
If this is true it should restrict the ATF in the way it enforces the NFA and other federal laws.
Then today I found this.

Fifth Circuit Grants en Banc Review in Lawsuit Challenging Bump-Stock Ban and Chevron Deference

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-06-24/fifth-circuit-grants-en-banc-review-in-lawsuit-challenging-bump-stock-ban-and-chevron-deference


The en banc court will consider two issues of exceptional importance: (1) doesthe statute’s definition of “machineguns” unambiguously include bump stocks?;and (2) if the statute is ambiguous, is ATF’s construction entitled to Chevron deference, or does the rule of lenity require interpreting any ambiguity inthis statute that has criminal applications in Mr. Cargill’s favor? The caseis calendared for oral argument in New Orleans, LA, on September 12. NCLA hasa similar case pending cert. at the U.S. Supreme Court in Aposhian v. Garland,et al.


https://nclalegal.org/cargill-v-garland/

[joshs]

For the past few months, I have been hearing about Chevron Deference vs the Rule of Lenity for how the ATF interprets law.

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is Chevron Deference was “created” in 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts should follow an agency’s interpretation of a law that is ambiguous. This is what the ATF is saying gives them the power to change the definitions of federal law.

The rule of Lenity on the other hand is supposed to make the court interpret ambiguous laws in favor of the defendants or plaintiffs (if challenging a law) if criminal penalties are involved.
On June 15 the Supreme Court overturned a lower court in a case called American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra. Many are saying that this decision has, for the most part, eliminated Chevron Deference.
If this is true it should restrict the ATF in the way it enforces the NFA and other federal laws.
Then today I found this.

Fifth Circuit Grants en Banc Review in Lawsuit Challenging Bump-Stock Ban and Chevron Deference

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-06-24/fifth-circuit-grants-en-banc-review-in-lawsuit-challenging-bump-stock-ban-and-chevron-deference




https://nclalegal.org/cargill-v-garland/

The Court didn't really reach the deference question in AHA because all the justices agreed that the statute wasn't ambiguous (something that is required to apply deference).

We've been pushing the rule of lenity vs. Chevron conflict in a number of amicus briefs (including in Cargill).

[HCM]

For the past few months, I have been hearing about Chevron Deference vs the Rule of Lenity for how the ATF interprets law.

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is Chevron Deference was “created” in 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts should follow an agency’s interpretation of a law that is ambiguous. This is what the ATF is saying gives them the power to change the definitions of federal law.

The rule of Lenity on the other hand is supposed to make the court interpret ambiguous laws in favor of the defendants or plaintiffs (if challenging a law) if criminal penalties are involved.
On June 15 the Supreme Court overturned a lower court in a case called American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra. Many are saying that this decision has, for the most part, eliminated Chevron Deference.
If this is true it should restrict the ATF in the way it enforces the NFA and other federal laws.
Then today I found this.

Fifth Circuit Grants en Banc Review in Lawsuit Challenging Bump-Stock Ban and Chevron Deference

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-06-24/fifth-circuit-grants-en-banc-review-in-lawsuit-challenging-bump-stock-ban-and-chevron-deference




https://nclalegal.org/cargill-v-garland/

ATF argues Chevron Deference give them the ability to interpret / apply the statutory definition of a machine gun with regard to bump stocks, not to change the statutory definition itself.

Like many Supreme Court cases this will come down to a philosophical conflict between “a living document” versus “strict interpretation.”

[5pins]

ATF argues Chevron Deference give them the ability to interpret / apply the statutory definition of a machine gun with regard to bump stocks, not to change the statutory definition itself.

Like many Supreme Court cases this will come down to a philosophical conflict between “a living document” versus “strict interpretation.”


On March 29, 2018, the Attorney General published
a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding amendmentsto the definition of “machinegun” in three ATF regula-
tions

In my book amending the definition and changing a definition is the same.

[HCM]

In my book amending the definition and changing a definition is the same.

They’re amending the CFR rule - which is their official (but mutable) interpretation of the statutory definition- not the statutory definition itself.

[alamo5000]

You are looking at the wrong court case. ;)

The yet to be released case regarding the EPA directly addresses whether the EPA (or any other agency) has the right to create 'law' on their own.

[5pins]

They’re amending the CFR rule - which is their official (but mutable) interpretation of the statutory definition- not the statutory definition itself.

So you are saying the statutory definition is different the their definition of the statute? If I'm an agency with the authority to change the interpretation of a statute then am I not changing the definition of the statute?

[5pins]

You are looking at the wrong court case. ;)

The yet to be released case regarding the EPA directly addresses whether the EPA (or any other agency) has the right to create 'law' on their own.

What case is that?

[alamo5000]

What case is that?

West Virginia vs the EPA. It's been combined with numerous other cases but I think that is still the name. The decision is due out this week.

[alamo5000]

What case is that?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/remaining-cases-supreme-court/index.html

[alamo5000]

From the internet:


"Urging the justices to hear the case, one of the challengers, the North American Coal Corporation, acknowledged that the issue of climate change and how to address it has “enormous importance,” but the company stressed that “[t]hose debates will not be resolved anytime soon.” What the court should resolve, it continued, “as soon as possible is who has the authority to decide those issues on an industry-wide scale — Congress or the EPA.” Unless the justices weigh in, the company warned, “these crucial decisions will be made by unelected agency officials without statutory authority, as opposed to our elected legislators.”"

[HCM]

So you are saying the statutory definition is different the their definition of the statute? If I'm an agency with the authority to change the interpretation of a statute then am I not changing the definition of the statute?

You were getting hung up on their use of definition in the CFR.

ATF “definition “in the CFR is not a statutory definition it is their interpretation of what doesn’t doesn’t fit in the box outlined by the statutory definition.

The question here is more akin to does a 12.5 inch stick fit in a 12.1 x 12.1” box ?

A strict interpretation would say no, a broad interpretation would say yes because it fits in diagonally.

But no one is changing the size of the box.

[joshs]

You were getting hung up on their use of definition in the CFR.

ATF “definition “in the CFR is not a statutory definition it is their interpretation of what doesn’t doesn’t fit in the box outlined by the statutory definition.

The question here is more akin to does a 12.5 inch stick fit in a 12.1 x 12.1” box ?

A strict interpretation would say no, a broad interpretation would say yes because it fits in diagonally.

But no one is changing the size of the box.

I think the difference is where an administrative agency is gap-filling (like they were in Chevron), and when the agency is trying to change the definition of a term that is already defined by statute.

[HCM]

I think the difference is where an administrative agency is gap-filling (like they were in Chevron), and when the agency is trying to change the definition of a term that is already defined by statute.

Gap filling is a great description.

[OlongJohnson]

I think the difference is where an administrative agency is gap-filling (like they were in Chevron), and when the agency is trying to change the definition of a term that is already defined by statute.

Especially when, in order to do so, they have to basically assert that the meaning of automatic is whatever the party says it is.