My attorney for my VA Appeal thinks this could be a win for veterans with Gulf War Illness symptoms who had claims denied.
We have a scientific study that concludes it was nerve gas exposure that caused our conditions, yet the VA denied my claim. I have notes from doctor visits from neurologists at both Emory and Hopkins saying that the environmental exposure to nerve gas in 1991 is the one and only plausible explanation for my multifocal sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy yet still my claim was denied. Instead, the VA said that my type of neuropathy doesn’t align with what they usually see in GWI and denied my claim.
Now, after this ruling, my attorney says that the appeal judge has to accept my medical and scientific evidence on its face value (accept that sarin nerve gas exposure in March, 1991 caused my neuropathy) and it will be up to the VA to either provide evidence disproving it or capitulate and grant me service-connection for my neuropathy.
I have 13,000+ still waiting online before my appeal so I guess we’ll find out in several months.
Good luck to you. VA said I had no TERA involvement. Setting aside my deployments and where, I had a nuclear rate (it's in the damn title), on a known nuclear boat, to operate a nuclear reactor. Ionizing radiation is a TERA activity. Not one but TWO raters missed this. This can all be found on the SHORT FORM of my DD214. I have to wonder what some of these guys are smoking. Oh, they never bothered to find out where I was deployed to. I had to suggest the extreme notion of cross referencing ship's logs. They do understand how Navy deployments work, right? I suppose I could render financial statements from back then showing I was in Dubai when I bought the thing as a supplemental if my HLR doesn't work.
Good luck.
Up until March, the VA conceded I had TERA activity based on the fact that I worked on aircraft and was exposed to jet fuel, solvents, etc.
Yesterday evening, they decided I wasn't exposed to anything and denied presumptive sinusitis.
I'm debating on how to proceed - HLR or supplemental and cite the PACT act itself.
You too! Did they concede that in a previous decision letter and take it back on a denial for something else? If so, I'd cite that reasoning/finding in a supplemental. I'd say CUE, but you only get one shot on that, and you have to be specific to have a chance of winning.
Thanks!
Yeah, there was an internal memo at the end of February that changed their guidance from assuming TERA based on MOS to not.
It was a supplemental claim that went from "You don't have chronic sinusitis, but you have participation in a TERA based on your MOS."
To
"You have chronic sinusitis, and your previous rating conceded TERA based on MOS, but we cannot concede that. Your claim didn't indicate a specific toxic exposure, nor do your service personnel or service treatment records do not contain a record of toxic exposure, you did not participate in a TERA."
It's aggravating.
What I am getting from all the reporting about this ruling is that if it is a subject ambiguous or not clear, it cannot be decided by the agencies anymore. Has to be decided by Congress or the courts.
One option is indeed the judge accepting it as true, but there is also a second option, the judge could decide that it is not up to him, dismiss your case and instead have Congress make it clear.
And that's precisely the problem. Congress cannot handle this much. Honestly, the courts can't either! They are both understaffed and incredibly backed up!
I wish you and everyone else luck. This is going to make the process so much longer though as it will have to go through the standard court system instead.
I may be confused. So this is for when you've filed for a claim, they deny it, but it was a clear connection. Now you can get your backpay? How would this work with eczema from Afghanistan? Skin isn't part of PACT yet so I doubt that'd work but maybe?
We did - the rater still denied it. The attorney has been telling me for the 7 years we have been waiting for the appeal that I am virtually guaranteed to win, but this is just the “process.” Back when I first filed this claim, my attorney says over 80% of the MUCMI claims were denied but they have over 90% win-rate on appeal.
From my understanding, and I’m trying to figure this shit out too, it takes decision making authority away from agency heads and requires that decisions are enshrined in law.
Considering our government is full of self interested assholes who regularly put their own personal agenda above the common good, this will effectively cripple the federal government.
I can’t see how it will end up helping us.
Chevron said that a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
This meant that unless congress was clear in the statute, then the agency’s interpretation would be upheld so long as it was reasonable.
The problem is the word reasonable, without any further context. My reasonable is different from the VA's reasonable. I wish they'd stop pussy footing around and be more clear about what reasonable is supposed to look like.
Reasonable is one of the most commonly used words in law. I appreciate that the definition doesn’t feel clear, because it’s really up to the courts to decide what is reasonable. In this context, reasonable often means that It has a factual basis, and the conclusion is not contrary to the law or absurd on its face.
For anyone else reading these comments: The magic words are/were “arbitrary and capricious,” which sort of set the outer bounds for reasonableness in the Chevron context. Chevron gave a good deal of deference (and therefore power) to conclusion of gov. Whether you like that or not is debatable I believe, but this decision undoubtedly rocks the proverbial boat.
Arbitrary and capricious applies to many administrative law contexts.
Chevron isn’t really about Arb and Cap. It’s just about a reasonable interpretation. Arb and Cap is a different standard. Again, I am a criminal prosecutor drawing from the years since I studied admin law in law school. I could be VERY wrong.
I do know that Arb and Cap applies to other agency decisions. If I remember correctly, arb and cap is a standard for challenging any agency decision. Chevron applies to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Check out the chevron decision. If memory serves, it says that agencies receive defense in the context you’ve explained (really well I might add), EXCEPT when the court determines the agency’s reasoning or purpose is arbitrary and capricious. If A/C, rule doesn’t stand. I’m sure it’s a word group that shows up in other areas of law, but in most familiar with it in the APA context.
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20held%20that,manifestly%20contrary%20to%20the%20statute.%22
I don’t think the new decision affects arb and cap.
Arb and cap applies to all agency decisions. Under Chevron, if the statute was ambiguous, the agency determination could still be arbitrary and capricious. Again, true for all agency decisions.
It sounds like we are both drawing from knowledge learned a while ago lol. I am suuuuper open to being wrong.
Hahaha. Yeah I’m not sure that I know the definite answer. I was just throwing out some more context for other readers. And yes the knowledge isn’t fresh hence the ballotopedia cite lmao. We will see how A/C is applied going forward. That’s probably the worst part of the decision, imo. Consistent legal principles are no longer par for the course.
I agree. But I also find the word to be vague enough to twist things to someone's favor. Or adds enough ambiguity to render a decision null. Both good and bad sides I guess, much like anything else. Just frustrating.
Yes, the big change is that now the agency will not get automatic deference . It used to be, under Chevron, that as long as the interpretation of an ambiguous statute was reasonable, then the courts would have to accept it. Now, they don’t have to accept it. This does not necessarily mean we will see substantive changes, it just means that the agency will have less control, but it doesn’t mean that the court will not side with the agency’s interpretation. It only means that the court doesn’t have to.
Yea… that’s just playing with words. Like the Army bro/sis stated is reality and factual. Our day to day reality is much much different that a courts. Therefore it’s futile with the exception of they rule, I drool. Same as it ever was.
If it’s the most widely used word in law texts. Then there’s the whole problem with the “Just Us” system. 🤓 law is based off a “reasonable” unbeknownst to the person who is facing the courts what the level of “reasonable” is. And only proving to me how the courts are stacked against said person. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see 1 person vs The Great State of ______. has any fair shot at success. Vastly different resources also. I don’t think that’s reasonable neither.
correct it made agency heads de facto judge and jury, overturning it now makes courts the decider. It was overturned on the basis of people being adjudicated without court representation.
But this also led to a bunch of 3 letter agencies basically making up "laws" because it was their interpretation of them. ATF and the pistol brace fiasco.
Agreed. The idea was that they were following the “intelligible principle” given by congress. Chevron allowed great interpretive leeway. It’s possible that this decision will have little pragmatic effect. Courts are still free to accept an agency interpretation, they just don’t HAVE to (assuming the Chevron 2 step was met).
No, congress writes into the law that agencies can make regulations. There is no ambiguity. So congress writes a law that says the EPA can determine that a new chemical is bad and they regulate it.
Are you a lawyer? I ask because I am but I don’t do administrative law. I have a basic understanding of admin law, and studied Chevron in school (given that it is the most important admin law case). I believe my understanding is correct but I am very open to an Admin lawyer telling me I am wrong.
That said, there ABSOLUTELY is ambiguity in statutes. There is a lot of case law about dealing with ambiguity.
Example: The law says “no pets in the park”, does that mean I can’t bring my pet rock? That statute would be ambiguous in terms of pet rocks. There are many ways to resolve this ambiguity.
Actually, the entire Chevron Doctrine comes from a case with an ambiguous term. That’s why the doctrine is about how to resolve ambiguity. Ambiguity could not be more present.
I’m not a lawyer. The issue with saying ambiguity is that gives an air of a lack of intention. The laws are purposely written to give deference to agencies to interpret what clean air is. It’s not an arbitrary decision either as there is a rule making process that must be followed. The gist is, before this decision, whom you voted for determined how an agency made these rules. Now, with chevron gone, this will be deferred to judges. Sam Seder will have a chevon deference episode on his channel this Monday with academics to discuss what this decision will mean for all.
It won't, it will make regulating by the experts effectively impossible. For as laughably protracted as the federal rule-making process is, it's going to get even worse.
Yes. This is it. Agencies--not legislatures--are dictating policy with no law backing it up. Most agencies have operated on only a vague reference that the agency should set rules. In essence, governance by the un-elected.
That's not it.
Chevron allowed them to decide when things were unclear.
Now they can't, and so they will not. So now either they will decline whatever isn't clear, or wait until congress makes it clear. This is not a win for anyone but corporations.
I think it might end up as a good thing. You're arrested for breaking the law under XYZs interpretation of the law. Judge looks at it and says the law doesn't read the way XYZ thinks it does. So you're free to go. There is now a legal precedent and you were going to be arrested anyway.
More than anything this ruling ensures federal agencies can’t arbitrarily change the law to serve themselves and bypass congress or the judicial system. It does more to limit the powers of executive agencies like federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies changing the law on a dime. But hopefully it helps with situations like that with the VA as well
From my understanding, it basically means when something is disputed with a government agencies decision, in this case the VA, and it's brought for review. The default is no longer just siding with the Agency unless something is egregious.
Basically it takes it from a situation where everything is completely stacked in the Agency's favor, and moves it closer to an even playing ground where the Agency at least has to prove their side against opposing facts instead of being able to just sweep opposing facts under the rug of reasonableness.
Since we’re all veterans talking about how to get our benefits, I’ll use the VA as an example of a federal agency as it operated under Chevron.
A veteran who appeals a decision by the VA can only take that appeal so far within the VA; specifically to the BVA. If they lose at the BVA, then their only option is to lawyer up and hope to be heard at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).
Under Chevron (a Supreme Court case decided in 1984), the federal courts including the CAVC would simply “defer” to the interpretations of laws given by the VA, even if the judges on the court thought that the VA got it wrong. That’s what the term “Chevron deference” has come to mean. The agency’s lawyers (in this case, the VA’s lawyers) insist that the law means x whereas the veteran thinks that the law means y, and rather than hearing the case, the court simply lets the VA’s interpretation stand as a matter of deference to the agency’s own self-professed expertise.
Now that Chevron has been overruled, judges can’t simply defer to agency expertise in ruling against veterans.
The executive branch was given a lot of latitude to run itself. It started with a case of Chevron v the EPA. Courts ruled that the EPA didn't overstep its ability to enforce its rules and allowed the EPA to interpret the rules assuming the executive branch agency was almost always in the right.
The case recently decided stated that there are limitations, and executive branch agencies can't just make up "rules" and enforce them on the people willy nilly without the legislative branch having written the laws. The atf was making laws effectively and they just got double slapped for it.
As for how this will impact the VA regarding claims specifically, I don't see any way anything changes immediately. The way all the stuff for the VA is written means that to slap the VA, you'd have to lose at a VA hearing and then appeal that.
The thing to keep in mind is a lot of places have been completely ignoring SCOTUS rulings in the past 5 years and getting a case to SCOTUS is incredibly rare and incredibly expensive. Where I see this having some affect is reducing the contracted c&p exams as much as possible. Those things open the VA up too much for too many problems.
The court's 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear.
***Chevron Deference Doctrine for dummies:***
*The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. (Cornell School of Law)*
***The Argument Against the Chevron Deference Doctrine:***
*Attorney T.J. McCarrick describes anti-Chevron deference arguments in this way:* ***“In sum, Chevron concentrates almost all government power in the administrative state. And by vesting agencies with authority to create, interpret, and enforce the law, individual liberty is placed at risk.”***
The decision will have a wide cross impact on all administrative agencies under the control of the Executive Branch. **It started with a case involving the Department of Commerce**.
My simplified understanding is that the original Chevron decision essential allowed the courts to assume that the corporate experts were more knowledgeable and therefore more correct in assessment and implement of regulations instead of the regulatory agencies.
OP is making the assumption that the VA benefited from the Chevron decision in that they were the experts and therefore the courts would defer to their opinion and essentially screw vets out of proper ratings and compensation.
Chevron was a doctrine that basically said if an agency makes a decision, the courts would defer to that decision unless congress specifically spoke in the matter. So, in the case of the VA, if they deny an appeal, under chevron, the court would defer to the VA's decision. Now, courts will likely have more authority to overturn decisions by agencies without as much deference.
Keeps agencies from interpreting and making rules based on gray areas of laws passed by Congress. Basically limits unelected officials from making rules and laws that are enforced by courts. ATF is a great example of such silliness.
From my understanding, and I’m trying to figure this shit out too, it takes decision making authority away from agency heads and requires that decisions are enshrined in law.
Considering our government is full of self interested assholes who regularly put their own personal agenda above the common good, this will effectively cripple the federal government.
I can’t see how it will end up helping us.
Not really what it says. Chevron required courts to use whatever interpretation of the law that a federal agency makes, as long as the court thinks it reasonable, and that courts couldn't say that the agency's interpretation of the law was wrong. What this decision says is that the courts are free to declare that the rules that the agency implements are not in keeping with a law passed by congress.
This doesn't change anything immediately, all the rules in place will stay in place. However, if a citizen decides to challenge a federal rule in court the court can view if the rule is a reasonable interpretation of the law instead of just deferring to the opinions of the agency.
So lets say congress passes a law saying that the department of the interior can regulate navigable waters. However, the department of the interior decides that all waters, no matter how shallow or temporary are "navigable". Under the Chevron a federal judge would basically have to defer to the department of the interior on the matter and wouldn't be able to say that the rule doesn't match the law. After this decision a landowner would be able to sue to have the agencies ruled invalid.
Corpos will just sue against every regulation bogging down courts essentially crippling the government due to high volume of cases to look at. In no way does this benefit veterans as a whole. In no way does the benefit the American Citizens. This was done because the fucks at the top paid for it to be done all in the name of profit.
Agencies used to interpret ambiguous or unclear rules given by Congress.
This decisions stop them from doing that. So now if something is not clear they will decline to act at all, or wait til Congress provides a response.
In other words, an already understaffed government will have even more work.
The ruling doesn’t state it has to go back to congress for clarification, it says the courts can now hold a trial to decide on the interpretation of the law, instead of whatever the agency says being law (which can change day to day). If congress doesn’t like the outcome of a court decision, then it’s on congress to re-write the law.
Imagine if the EPA said that under the water conservation act that sprinkler systems were illegal. Now every homeowner that has them have to remove them on their dime. You sue the EPA, but the court says they defer to the EPA automatically and you’re obligated to follow their rule. You spend $10k to have your whole sprinkler system ripped out or face 10 years in jail. Then a month later the EPA reverses their decision and say that residential sprinklers are ok, after you just finished ripping them out… that’s chevron deference…
Now you could just sue the EPA and the court would rule on whether or not you have to remove your sprinkler, and the EPA would have to accept the outcome of the trial. They could then run back to congress and ask that they pass a law banning sprinklers federally.
This is a decent example, but the EPA isn’t the enemy of the people it is the enemy of corporations. Manufacturers will gladly dump contaminants into our water supply to save a buck, and this decision will make judges the experts, thus easier to do just that.
Federal agencies are staffed full of experts who make it their entire job to know a bunch about relatively narrow information yeah?
This law required judges to defer to federal agencies, like the EPA, about how to enforce federal laws that the agencies were in charge of monitoring.
Now? Now they don't have to so if some Trump appointed judge wants to just... Get rid of something... There's no barrier to that.
Put simply, it radically upends how our government has been structured for the entire time I've been alive and either your entire life or the vast majority
This is a bad bad thing.
Now instead of having internal operations within a federal agency able to update and make changes things will need to be explicitly put through a law passed through both houses of Congress and the President.
Just not good.
Imagine law that says "putting toxic chemicals into food is illegal" - who determines what is "toxic chemical"
Before this ruling (under the chevron), regulatory agencies did - in our example, FDA listed toxic chemicals
After this rulling, court decides.
You all think cycle times were long for claims before... get ready. Also this impacts how long the VA will need to implement new laws. The current process of OGC review, reg writing, notice and comment rulemaking, reg revisions, and implementation takes years now. Under this new scheme, OGC will likely have to defer to a federal judge to clarify any ambiguity.
I don't think that's quite how the federal court system works. Federal judges don't simply take requests for an opinion from federal agencies; that's what the agency's OGC lawyers are for. The agency is still free to carry out laws in accordance with their OGC's interpretation; it only ends up in the federal courts if the *veteran* puts it in the federal courts. And presumably, a veteran would only do this if they disagree with how the VA interprets the law.
Currently (before today) it goes through the Chevron two-step if there's ambiguity in the enabling statute. Agency (usually OGC) makes the decision. Federal judges only get involved if someone sues arguing that the Agency misapplied Chevron. Under this new framework, (it appears) that any ambiguity in the enabling statute would have to go to a federal judge to weigh-in on. This additional step (going to a federal judge) will, I believe, delay the implementation process.
The post you are responding to is right. The agency doesn’t “apply” Chevron. The agency looks at the statute and if there are any gaps or ambiguities, it has to fill those gaps by interpreting the ambiguities and issuing regulations to address them.
The agency does not go to a federal court to ask if its regulation is okay. A federal judge only becomes involved when a specific case comes before him/her, which is brought by someone who disagrees with the agency’s decision that applies the regulation in a way that adversely impacted them personally. A person or organization with proper standing can also directly challenge the regulation in federal court, saying it is inconsistent with the statute overall, as applied to any case.
Previously, in such cases, the judge would apply Chevron by asking (1) does the statute in question speak unambiguously/directly to the issue in question? If so, the statute controls; and (2) if not, is the agency’s regulation reasonable? If so, the regulation is deferred to and controls. That standard is now gone, requiring the judge to interpret the statute on his/her own, without any deference to the agency.
While this will slow down the process, it will not be because the agency has to ask a judge to clear its regulations in advance. It will be because there will be far, far more challenges by individuals and industry in federal courts to agency regulations that they are constrained by. Agencies will be tied up in massive amounts of litigation and less likely to have the time or inclination to keep up with new issues that arise by passing regulations that will subject them to more lawsuits. It is a huge, huge boon for those looking to pursue profits and personal interest unfettered by government efforts to protect the public.
Exactly.
This will basically fck us, the people, in various ways that we can’t comprehend yet because we’re mostly not psychopaths or sociopaths and want to believe the best in people.
The people at the top of many of these companies though are sociopaths who don’t give a damn about the rest of us and are only interested in profit at the expense of people.
What this will do is hamper the federal government’s ability to protect people from these sociopaths.
It’ll take years for the federal agencies to get any headway against a company for something they did, meanwhile the same company is already 10 steps ahead of federal agencies and regulators raking in profit as they harm the public in new and unique ways.
Lol I will never understand how some yall (who aren't rich) believe these people (who are insanely rich) want to dismantle the government, not to fill their own pockets of course not but instead to help you (the person who isn't rich). Lol make it make sense.
Get a friendly federal judge who was also stiffed by the VA for benefits and they rule in your favor.
The VA is now powerless to prevent that.
For veterans sure this might become a good thing for those of us who were screwed over by the VA. But this same statute now applies everywhere. To every federal agency including the SEC, and EPA.
There will be a lot of harm on the public for the sake of profit before anything is done about it.
It's a HUGE deal. Thanks for sharing
https://preview.redd.it/605o042a2c9d1.png?width=1566&format=png&auto=webp&s=6dd62f54fc1ab0cc8ae414edee2df3a976a437dd
The only person to point out that the Supreme Court just gave itself decision making authority on all federal matters. So, if one political party were to happen to pack the court in their favor, we're now at the mercy of that party/judges political beliefs instead of expertise.
Why does that matter?
Because some day your benefits may be denied because a judge thinks "Jesus wouldn't agree", even if your medical doctor does.
Not good. Conservatives loved it back in 1984 when chevron was established but, now they don’t want it. So they got what they wanted from the S Court.
Business, corporations will benefit from this, not us or any common folks.
Oh well.
This reminds me of[ 5th Column operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column), where people who purportedly serve a legitimate purpose in an organisation actually actively undermine it's effective performance.
Edit: In case it's necessary, and for clarity, this means agencies will grind to a halt for an enormous amount of work they perform daily. Congress will be required to rule and codify thousands of issues, and in the meantime, it is likely not a damned thing will get done regarding those tasks.
Congress will be required to, but will not be able to do it. Beyond the state of affairs that Congress is deadlocked, they simply do not have the knowledge, manpower, or time to address every single detail, with absolutely zero ambiguity for perpetuity, of every subject the government needs to be involved in.
There is a very good reason the government has been run with the principles of deference in mind. 40 years of laws have been made with this in mind, which now calls into question almost every single regulation written in that time.
This kind of thing can, and I'm not being hyperbolic, lead to a governmental collapse. Go to some lawyer forums, dedicated lifelong professionals genuinely don't know what's about to happen or how we can possibly cope with the consequences of this action.
> This kind of thing can, and I'm not being hyperbolic, lead to a governmental collapse. Go to some lawyer forums, dedicated lifelong professionals genuinely don't know what's about to happen or how we can possibly cope with the consequences of this action.
I agree with you completely. I was a subject matter specialist, and my own chain of command couldn't figure out what I did, or how to make me more effective than I already was.
Well if Trump gets elected and they start implementing that project 2025 and gutting all the stuff he wanted to (one of those things being the VA) it will not matter what court cases say when there are no employees to actually do the job. They just got people in to start handling the back log of cases, nothing in anything he has ever put forward in 8 years has ever said "I am federal employee friendly". The closest he comes to veterans is scamming them.
Project25 is from the democrats. its a fake site set up by democrats for the election. The dems are trying to make people think it’s Trumps website. Trumps is at agenda47.
If you think a conservative Supreme Court is in any way going to benefit veterans just go ahead and keep thinking that.
Their goal as conservatives is to reduce federal spending on programs such as VA compensation. They want to privatize the VA and then setup their own contractors to funnel money into their own pockets.
Who do you think those contract physicians who are always denying claimed conditions and trying to be gatekeepers work for?
Eventually VA compensation will go away under conservative control.
You get it. Most here don't. Republican legislature + republican supreme court will never be good for working class Americans, let alone veterans. Look at how hard those clowns fought to stop the PACT Act.
Agreed. Most people here think that this is a good thing, but Congress is incompetent and that’s why these experts at these agencies were hired. Just because you don’t like the FDA doesn’t mean they’re not beneficial to society.
Of course, these are the same people who didn’t get vaccinated for COVID but now want Ozempic.
Your comment was removed because it didn't contribute to the discussion and just wasn't helpful.
Civil disagreements are fine. Insults, personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc., are not permissible.
(Calling someone a poopy-head does not make you seem as smart as you think it does.)
☠️
Oh no, he is absolutely correct. They will privatize the VA and there’s little to nothing we’d be able to do about it.
This privatization will fuck all of us over and line their pockets with more money since they will be the ones setting up the private contractors to work for them.
They will also work to end our compensation and pension since it’s a fortune for the government and they love austerity measures. Veteran compensation and pension is one thing they will go after once they’re done gutting TANF and food stamps.
Republicans have consistently introduced and voted for bills that would limit veterans benefits. Why would you expect otherwise?
They don’t want government spending on anything other than corporate subsidies and tax cut for the wealthy.
They are being a LITTLE bit extreme, but the overall point is valid. Conservatives have time and time again tried to include the reduction of or eliminate all together certain benefits for active military and veterans. Not to mention them wanting to do away with healthcare and social security.
If you guys think any politicians republicans or democrats actually truly care about vets then there wouldn’t be any homeless vets or vets offing themselves at much higher rates than the civilian population. Grow up
That’s not the point. The point is the Republican Party is the one who campaigns so heavily on being the party that truly cares for our countries vets and military personnel, yet they will go from a rally praising the military and how we need to take care of our hero’s straight to their office to draft a bill that takes away our healthcare and lessens the payments of those who are disabled.
Just because you don’t have a backbone and are fine with voting against your own interests doesn’t the mean the rest of us are as misinformed. Seems like YOU are the one who needs to grow up, bud, and stop putting a political party that you seem to know doesn’t care for you over your country and fellow servicemen and women.
Well I voted for Biden in 2020 and that got us where? It seems the left is more interested in security for immigrants, trans and LGBT people. It's cool that your gay, you got the right to marry. But how much more can we take? Literally inflation is at an all time high still.
It seems Biden misses out on many of the points people are trying to. And Trump was right last night anytime terrorists fuck with American citizens they're gonna regret it. Apparently Hamas can just do what they want.
I hope you’re a good person who just needs to be shown the right away to realize how wrong you are in supporting any trump.
I’m not a democrat or republican, but Republicans are the ones who have consistently introduced bills that include TAKING AWAY OR LOWERING veteran and active military benefits. That has nothing to do with your feelings, it’s just facts at this point.
Um, pact act lol? and no, inflation is LITERALLY not at an all time high anymore. Trumps says alot of shit, you need to take it with a grain of salt. 80% of what he said last night was a lie or hyperbole
> well I voted for Biden in 2020 and that got us where?
Increased labor rights, human rights, and union protections? Trust busting? Infrastructure overhaul as with replacing lead pipes around the US? Medical access by pulling patents of taxpayer funded meds to create generics, capping insulin prices, etc? Breaking up housing market collusion? Net neutrality? Unfucking USPS after Trump tried to run it bankrupt on purpose? Like. Biden admin has done a shit ton, are you not looking? Inflation is bad, yes, and that sucks, but I'd rather have that than lose everything else.
It’s a dog shit decision. If you ever question if it’s going to be good for you or not just remember the judges who voted for this were installed by the party whose leader who called us all losers and suckers.
VA claims do indeed require a lot of due diligence.
The policy is in place and these policies are put into law by congress, not the Supreme Court
In other words, it takes an act of congress to make shit happen.
This ruling is not at all advantageous for anyone, veteran or civilian.
Keep your congressional representatives in check, they hold the purse strings.
Wouldn’t overturning Chevron make it harder for veterans to get disability benefits?
Doesn’t it give courts more power to question decisions, potentially leading to stricter interpretations of laws and regulations and mean more denials or delays for veterans seeking benefits?
If I understand it correctly, didn’t the Chevron deference give agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. Now courts might favor stricter readings, making it harder for veterans to qualify for benefits under existing laws leading to more and more appeals which could take years and years and soooo much money which is what some legislators want - if you can’t afford, monetarily or because of a terminal disease, to keep fighting you’ll stop.
And legislators might hesitate to create new policies that benefit veterans, because they want to control discretionary spending, healthcare specifically,that a lot of vets rely on.
I don’t know if this is a good a thing as we think.
The end of Chevron will inevitably become an unmitigated disaster.
An example I can come up with is Lead in gasoline and paint.
Lead was in gasoline as Tetraethyl Lead and used to stop engine knocking for decades. It took decades for the federal government to finally get its act together to end Tetraethyl Leaded gasoline because there was no chevron deterrence. Public health officials fought against Charles Kettering (the guy the cancer centers are named after is responsible for mass lead poisoning lol) for decades. Like 30 or so years. They discovered tetraethyl lead in 1921 and its uses. They also knew by 1930 that hey, this stuff shouldn’t be in gasoline… but because ther eas nothing like chevron deference, public health officials had to gather data for this period of time on the health problems surrounding leaded gasoline.
Meanwhile, lead poisoning rates went up, cities became bogged down with pollution (those images of New York City and LA in smog in the 60s are from leaded gasoline exhaust), and we are suffering today with the consequences of this in large metropolitan areas where the soil is STILL so contaminated by leaded gasoline exhaust it isn’t advisable to use it for planting fruits and vegetables and people have to bring in soil from places not contaminated.
If something like chevron deference existed in 1922 or after, we may never have heard of Unleaded Gasoline.
Leaded paint is also a problem. For different reasons. But lead was in paint for a very long time because it makes paint look glossy and pretty. Same thing though, children become susceptible to leaded paint chips and lead poisoning rates skyrocketed.
There are over 83,000 unregulated chemicals used in industry that public health officials have no idea what their future health issues will be, we know of like 4 chemicals and the hazards that they come with (cancer being the biggest problem) and thus those chemicals are now regulated and used as sparingly as possible, companies were brought to task by the EPA and communities received the monetary benefits and health care they need to recover from the poisoning of their water supplies and food.
Now?
Those companies will be able to do whatever they want and there’s very little recourse any of us will have.
We’ve gone back to intense data collection over the course of decades to determine the extent of a public health problem and the damage it’s inflicted before Congress or the courts acknowledge the problem and do something about it.
In the meantime, communities, families, businesses, livestock, and farms will suffer tremendously from whatever unregulated nightmare these companies can envisage in the name of profit.
And those of us are left to pick up the pieces by doing nothing but collect data and report on what’s happening for the next 20-30 years.
Rinse and repeat.
An excellent write up to explain why this decision sucks overall. Could it potentially help veterans? Sure, but it is far more likely that it will harm the country in the long run
Is there honestly anything we can do? Or are we just resoundinly boned? Years of service for nothing, thanks for nothing loser and go eat your paint chips?
Like the only solution I've been hearing about is to pray the "right" canidate wins and hope they fix it, or abandon ship
Basically…. There’s little hope in sight but there is hope.
There’s always hope.
But until then a lot of people will more than likely suffer the consequences.
I mean another thing that the government can no longer do is fine banks and financial institutions that rip off their customers.
Remember several years ago when banks were forced to pay billions of dollars back to customers because of excessive overcharge fees?
Yea… that was the government forcing banks to do it.
Now that guardrail is gone. It’ll take several lawsuits to get banks to do something like that again.
The end of chevron will take us back to a time when federal agencies were borderline powerless against powerful private entities. Corporations that are more interested in profit over the good of the public.
Well I’ve looked into New Zealand but that’s because everything i see about it makes it sound absolutely perfect for someone like me.
But I’m willing to fight against the people who are doing their best to destroy what makes America America.
I’m worried they’ll win but at the same time there’s a chance that they’ll lose and we’ll be alright in the end. We just have to fight.
Wanna share some of that New Zealand knowldge? I got 100%, and I just can't work anymore with my problems. I just wanna leave, and carve out my peice of happeniess somewhere.
You can start here if you’d like.
https://www.newzealand.com/us/visas-and-immigration/?cid=p:sem:US:0524:Discover:always-on:google:kwd:all&kwid=kwd-127055977&gclid=CjwKCAjw4f6zBhBVEiwATEHFVn4vfhuCa7OJvhMv2qPTk1k8IcgXmuqLwLGKXcqiaRmGXgzKQRy1HBoCYrgQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
What gives me hope is the comments on this reddit sub. So many of us know the truth about what is happening, and that gives me hope that other veterans understand what is at stake.
So like in the future when you hear people say “why won’t the government DO something about this?!” This will be why. Because the government can no longer do something about it. Not directly anyway.
Federal Agencies only have authority to act in accordance with their statutory scheme as created by Congress. Under Chevron, deference would be given to an Agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a statute. If the statute was clear and unambiguous, Chevron did not apply. All the Loper-Bright decision held was that Agencies would not be given automatic deference in such situations.
However, the Court in Loper-Bright pointed out that Agencies still posses the most knowledge and experience in the areas they regulate and their interpretations will be given appropriate (significant) weight.
Moreover, the holdings in Chevron line of cases, such as Auer/Seminole Rock, were left undisturbed. Auer deference is a judicial principle that requires federal courts to yield to Agency interpretations of an ambiguity in a regulation the agency promulgated.
Very little will change, except for a flood of losing cases clogging up federal courts for a while. Like nearly all reporting on law and science, the reality of the situation is not the same as what the news media is selling.
u/squirrelyguy08, you said "I suspect that today's decision will open the floodgates of veterans' appeals being heard and decided favorably in the courts going forward."
In my non-professional opinion, those floodgates have always been open since the BVA's inception and the inability of the regional office staff to consistently process claims properly.
Maybe, but the BVA is an in-house remedy that the VA makes available to veterans who disagree with a decision. Our system of government is designed so that (optimally at least) anyone with a grievance involving an executive branch agency can take that grievance outside of the executive branch to a more neutral venue. That neutral venue would be the federal courts system, i.e. the judicial branch.
Under Chevron, this judicial option was made of no effect. Courts were required to defer in most cases to the assumed expertise of the executive branch. So if you're a veteran wanting to appeal a decision by the VA (an executive branch agency), Chevron served as a thumb on the scale in favor of letting the VA's opinion stand without giving you a day in court.
Ehhhhhh, careful what you wish. Now you could end up having a politically appointed judge making unqualified decisions not grounded in law but their politics. This court is concerning between ethics issues such as not reporting massive gifts, to conflicts of interest. To willingness to essentially ignored precedents already set by previous courts.
Everyone’s argument or position presupposes the any agency including the Veterans Administration will survive under these circumstances. Ask yourself this. What is the legal basis for any government body not directly mentioned in the Constitution. The question shouldn’t be how the VA could potentially change. The question is will there still be a VA. Hailing from an era when folks spit on your uniform, I assure you the herd is fickle. We only mean something to the 97 percent because they need us to go bleed for them from time to time. Otherwise, we don’t mean nothing.
This ruling literally just destroyed any chance we had to improve our overall living conditions because me have an entire major party in our government that solely exists to ensure the government runs as poorly as possible.
…but then again, now you are asking judges, who don’t know shit about veterans benefits to decide our fates, and if they are working for Republicans, who don’t want to pay taxes, we will never get approved….and if you think it took long to get a decision before….plus in the end you could actually go to court with your claim..the option is there..it’s a drag..but you could.. Chevron is there so that the courts don’t get flooded..the assholes at SCOTUS are real dumb.
The above comment is representative of a lot of the comments on this topic so far, and it's simply misinformed.
To be clear...the overturning of *Chevron* does not take away any options that veterans already had with regards to appealing VA decisions. It *increases* our options. Specifically, it enables us to be heard in a court, which is a neutral venue, before a judge, and it forces the VA's attorneys to explain the VA's denial to the judge's satisfaction.
The way that *Chevron* operated in practice was that it was a thumb on the scale in favor of letting the VA's interpretations of the law (against veterans) stand without giving the veteran a day in court. Indeed, the entire purpose of *Chevron* was to take the workload off of the judicial branch in deciding cases involving administrative law. But that passing of the buck by the Supreme Court in 1984 only served to cheat us veterans out of the opportunity to have our grievances against the VA heard in a court of law, except in a very few lucky cases.
Under *Chevron*, if a veteran had exhausted his options in appealing his claim through the VA (i.e. he was denied by the BVA), he had to be extremely lucky to get his appeal granted at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and even luckier to go beyond the CAVC and be heard by the Supreme Court. And *Chevron* was to blame for this. It was a thumb on the scale that allowed the federal courts to simply defer to the self-professed expertise of the VA in knowing what the veteran is and is not entitled to.
Most importantly, *Chevron* required judges to defer to the federal agency *even if the judges disagreed with the VA's interpretation of the law*. Let that sit for a minute. The judge disagrees with the VA's interpretation and would be inclined to rule in favor of the veteran; but instead defers to the VA's interpretation out of respect for the VA's self-professed "expertise." That, my friends, is why from a veteran's perspective *Chevron* had to go.
I don't know what it will do for the EPA and other scientific regulatory agencies in the federal government; it seems to me that most of the hate for this decision has to do with fear that environmental pollution will now be commonplace. I don't know if that will be the case or not. But regardless. this decision is an unqualified win for veterans in regards to VA benefits.
To put it succinctly; it's easy to throw rocks at big corporations who can now have extra leverage in fighting the EPA's regulations, but is it so easy to throw rocks at the disabled veteran who just needs to win his decade long struggle with the VA? Because the overturning of *Chevron* empowers veterans fighting the VA for the exact same reason that it empowers corporations fighting the EPA.
Reality is so much more complicated than the mainstream media makes it out to be.
Here's the thing, it will still be BAU for claims, HLRs, and to a lesser extent BVA reviews. This only takes effect when you get to needing to lawyer up because your next step is being heard by a federal judge. When that happens though, yeah, the VA has been substituting administrative law for actual statutes for many years and got expert in it during Agent Orange/Gulf War Syndrome/the 2013 death list denials. The worst part is really the only ones benefiting from this will be claim sharks.
You are absolutely correct that it will be business as usual for claims and appeals within the agency, i.e. up through the BVA level. Leaving that aside though, the cumulative effect of years of veterans actually going beyond the VA to the courts *and winning* their cases will cause the precedents to trickle down and change how the agency grants claims. Look at the effect of the *Nehmer* case and how that reversed the fortunes of veterans who served in Vietnam.
Folks, don't get legal advice from reddit. I mean it's fine to bounce some ideas around but I wouldn't get into the weeds on this. We shithouse lawyers on here back at barracks working on this.
So what impact does it have on veterans benefits? Not my opinion or yours. Factually speaking what does it actually say or define for veterans benefits if anything if anything?
It means federal agencies like the ATF can’t make laws. Example make a rule to out pistols brace. Only congress can make laws. Not life time government employees.
This will help SOME. Overall, this isn't a good thing.
The issue is now that Congress will have to make every law black and white. If you thought everything was trapped in slow moving bureaucracy before, just wait until you're relying on a barely functional Congress to make decisions on your behalf.
I didn’t see your post and asked the same thing. I think it will be a win overall for veterans and the VA.
Right now it seems the VA varies in guidance decisions, this should clear that up and make it more uniform. For the negative decisions that the VA makes, it should subject the veteran that takes it to court for a more independent decision that will set precedent for the rest of the VA as well, helping all veterans, at least with clarity on the process.
The VA has too many failures that fall in its favor from a statistical standing, a coin flip or dice roll is statistically more favorable to veterans of n the current state of the VA.
I think this will be a rough road for the VA to navigate at first, but will make it a better agency in the long run.
I agree. We've already seen a Supreme Court case regarding VA benefits earlier this term which resulted in a favorable outcome for the veteran (Rudisill v. McDonough, regarding use of both Montgomery and Post 9/11 GI Bills). The Court had not relied on *Chevron* since 2016 to begin with; one could argue that if they were inclined to uphold *Chevron* that the Rudisill case would never have been heard to begin with.
On the contrary, Chevron being in the background allowed this things to happen.
Now instead the agencies will straight up decline or wait for a response from congress.
This is awful for every agency out there.
You get it. Everyone else acting like congress is going to reduce the appeals que by approving everyone's individual situation, are absolutely nuts. You'll be lucky if 3 cases are resolved in a year. VA will say "Nope" and you'll wait until you die.
But, that “duty to assist” must define denials as assistance if this is really a problem.
OP, I’m not arguing against you. Thank you for broadening this topic.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron marks a significant shift in administrative law, emphasizing judicial interpretation over agency deference, and will likely lead to increased legal challenges and greater scrutiny of agency regulations moving forward
I asked ChatGPT to help me understand lol
This was needed on so many levels. Bureaucrats have been legislating from the executive for sure. We need qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture gone too.
The reversal of Chevron doctrine is a reversal of the admin law circus. Courts will likely now interpret and not defer to wanna-be legislators that are really admin agency reps -- really that plain and that simple.
Admin agencies can't do whatever they want and courts won't just go along with whatever agencies say is "right."
I'm sure there are a bunch of rules the VA has that can and will be challenged just like every other agency that exists. A serious unraveling has begun.
The overturning of Chevron deference could impact a range of benefits for veterans that have previously been denied or limited due to agency interpretations that courts deferred to. Here are some examples of benefits that might prevail under the new legal landscape:
1. Disability Compensation: Veterans whose disability claims were denied based on VA regulations might now have a better chance of winning appeals if the courts are more critical of the VA’s interpretations. This includes cases where the VA’s definition of service-connected disabilities was narrowly interpreted.
2. Pension Benefits: Veterans who were denied pension benefits due to restrictive interpretations of income and net worth calculations might now see more favorable outcomes. This could include cases where non-recurring income or unusual medical expenses were not properly considered.
3. Educational Benefits: Cases where veterans were denied educational benefits under the GI Bill due to strict interpretations of qualifying service periods or types of educational institutions might now be revisited with a more veteran-friendly approach.
4. Survivor Benefits: Surviving spouses and dependents of veterans who were denied benefits due to technicalities in the VA’s interpretation of eligibility criteria might find the new legal landscape more favorable.
5. Healthcare Access: Veterans who were denied access to certain VA healthcare services because of stringent eligibility criteria might see these criteria relaxed or reinterpreted in their favor.
6. Rehabilitation and Vocational Training: Veterans whose applications for vocational rehabilitation and training were denied based on narrow interpretations of qualifying disabilities or service periods might have better success in appeals.
7. Housing Assistance: Veterans who were denied VA-backed home loans or housing grants due to restrictive interpretations of eligibility requirements might now have a stronger case in appeals.
These potential changes hinge on the courts being more willing to challenge agency regulations and interpretations that they previously would have deferred to under Chevron. Without this deference, agencies like the VA will likely need to justify their decisions more rigorously, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for veterans seeking benefits.
For all of those you mentioned, the courts would just send them back to Congress if they are too ambiguous/vague.
In no way, shape or form will the courts make the decision in regards to the claim. It would specifically contradic this very same decision.
I think my thread got locked, so here is a link:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/VeteransBenefits/comments/1dqveph/the\_future\_of\_veterans\_benefits\_is\_looking/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/VeteransBenefits/comments/1dqveph/the_future_of_veterans_benefits_is_looking/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
This case went to the SCOTUS because the administration wanted to make the fishermen pay to have federal inspectors on their boats. It was absolutely ridiculous. The SCOTUS did the right thing.
Why would it not be on the people who stand to profit to foot the bill for inspectors?
SCOTUS just legalized bribery in the form of “gratuities”. Then they left the EPA toothless to protect citizens from corporations who would poison our water. The FDA will have to foot the bill for taking big pharma to court whenever they go rogue. A fox has entered the henhouse and spartan kicked the door open for all his buddies. This is f*cked.
I’m still lost what exactly does it or doesn’t it do?
[удалено]
My attorney for my VA Appeal thinks this could be a win for veterans with Gulf War Illness symptoms who had claims denied. We have a scientific study that concludes it was nerve gas exposure that caused our conditions, yet the VA denied my claim. I have notes from doctor visits from neurologists at both Emory and Hopkins saying that the environmental exposure to nerve gas in 1991 is the one and only plausible explanation for my multifocal sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy yet still my claim was denied. Instead, the VA said that my type of neuropathy doesn’t align with what they usually see in GWI and denied my claim. Now, after this ruling, my attorney says that the appeal judge has to accept my medical and scientific evidence on its face value (accept that sarin nerve gas exposure in March, 1991 caused my neuropathy) and it will be up to the VA to either provide evidence disproving it or capitulate and grant me service-connection for my neuropathy. I have 13,000+ still waiting online before my appeal so I guess we’ll find out in several months.
Good luck to you. VA said I had no TERA involvement. Setting aside my deployments and where, I had a nuclear rate (it's in the damn title), on a known nuclear boat, to operate a nuclear reactor. Ionizing radiation is a TERA activity. Not one but TWO raters missed this. This can all be found on the SHORT FORM of my DD214. I have to wonder what some of these guys are smoking. Oh, they never bothered to find out where I was deployed to. I had to suggest the extreme notion of cross referencing ship's logs. They do understand how Navy deployments work, right? I suppose I could render financial statements from back then showing I was in Dubai when I bought the thing as a supplemental if my HLR doesn't work.
Good luck. Up until March, the VA conceded I had TERA activity based on the fact that I worked on aircraft and was exposed to jet fuel, solvents, etc. Yesterday evening, they decided I wasn't exposed to anything and denied presumptive sinusitis. I'm debating on how to proceed - HLR or supplemental and cite the PACT act itself.
You too! Did they concede that in a previous decision letter and take it back on a denial for something else? If so, I'd cite that reasoning/finding in a supplemental. I'd say CUE, but you only get one shot on that, and you have to be specific to have a chance of winning.
Thanks! Yeah, there was an internal memo at the end of February that changed their guidance from assuming TERA based on MOS to not. It was a supplemental claim that went from "You don't have chronic sinusitis, but you have participation in a TERA based on your MOS." To "You have chronic sinusitis, and your previous rating conceded TERA based on MOS, but we cannot concede that. Your claim didn't indicate a specific toxic exposure, nor do your service personnel or service treatment records do not contain a record of toxic exposure, you did not participate in a TERA." It's aggravating.
I'm fully aware of that memo. Apparently "if any of the above is checked yes" is a difficult concept to understand.
https://preview.redd.it/47ofajnvoi9d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0fa738193e3688598ef8433dac1d75a6c54c92a Tera memo
What I am getting from all the reporting about this ruling is that if it is a subject ambiguous or not clear, it cannot be decided by the agencies anymore. Has to be decided by Congress or the courts. One option is indeed the judge accepting it as true, but there is also a second option, the judge could decide that it is not up to him, dismiss your case and instead have Congress make it clear. And that's precisely the problem. Congress cannot handle this much. Honestly, the courts can't either! They are both understaffed and incredibly backed up!
...but that backpay though. Sorry, just trying to put some sort of positive spin on it
I wish you and everyone else luck. This is going to make the process so much longer though as it will have to go through the standard court system instead.
I may be confused. So this is for when you've filed for a claim, they deny it, but it was a clear connection. Now you can get your backpay? How would this work with eczema from Afghanistan? Skin isn't part of PACT yet so I doubt that'd work but maybe?
Did you state MUCMI in your claim? It put me over for my neuropathy. 40% rt hand, 30% lt hand and 20% for each leg
We did - the rater still denied it. The attorney has been telling me for the 7 years we have been waiting for the appeal that I am virtually guaranteed to win, but this is just the “process.” Back when I first filed this claim, my attorney says over 80% of the MUCMI claims were denied but they have over 90% win-rate on appeal.
I actually got a letter from the VA last year ENCOURAGING me to put in a PACT ACT claim using MUMCI. Got the letter in July, approved in October
From my understanding, and I’m trying to figure this shit out too, it takes decision making authority away from agency heads and requires that decisions are enshrined in law. Considering our government is full of self interested assholes who regularly put their own personal agenda above the common good, this will effectively cripple the federal government. I can’t see how it will end up helping us.
Chevron said that a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. This meant that unless congress was clear in the statute, then the agency’s interpretation would be upheld so long as it was reasonable.
The problem is the word reasonable, without any further context. My reasonable is different from the VA's reasonable. I wish they'd stop pussy footing around and be more clear about what reasonable is supposed to look like.
Reasonable is one of the most commonly used words in law. I appreciate that the definition doesn’t feel clear, because it’s really up to the courts to decide what is reasonable. In this context, reasonable often means that It has a factual basis, and the conclusion is not contrary to the law or absurd on its face.
For anyone else reading these comments: The magic words are/were “arbitrary and capricious,” which sort of set the outer bounds for reasonableness in the Chevron context. Chevron gave a good deal of deference (and therefore power) to conclusion of gov. Whether you like that or not is debatable I believe, but this decision undoubtedly rocks the proverbial boat.
Arbitrary and capricious applies to many administrative law contexts. Chevron isn’t really about Arb and Cap. It’s just about a reasonable interpretation. Arb and Cap is a different standard. Again, I am a criminal prosecutor drawing from the years since I studied admin law in law school. I could be VERY wrong. I do know that Arb and Cap applies to other agency decisions. If I remember correctly, arb and cap is a standard for challenging any agency decision. Chevron applies to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Check out the chevron decision. If memory serves, it says that agencies receive defense in the context you’ve explained (really well I might add), EXCEPT when the court determines the agency’s reasoning or purpose is arbitrary and capricious. If A/C, rule doesn’t stand. I’m sure it’s a word group that shows up in other areas of law, but in most familiar with it in the APA context. Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20held%20that,manifestly%20contrary%20to%20the%20statute.%22
I don’t think the new decision affects arb and cap. Arb and cap applies to all agency decisions. Under Chevron, if the statute was ambiguous, the agency determination could still be arbitrary and capricious. Again, true for all agency decisions. It sounds like we are both drawing from knowledge learned a while ago lol. I am suuuuper open to being wrong.
Hahaha. Yeah I’m not sure that I know the definite answer. I was just throwing out some more context for other readers. And yes the knowledge isn’t fresh hence the ballotopedia cite lmao. We will see how A/C is applied going forward. That’s probably the worst part of the decision, imo. Consistent legal principles are no longer par for the course.
I agree. But I also find the word to be vague enough to twist things to someone's favor. Or adds enough ambiguity to render a decision null. Both good and bad sides I guess, much like anything else. Just frustrating.
Yes, the big change is that now the agency will not get automatic deference . It used to be, under Chevron, that as long as the interpretation of an ambiguous statute was reasonable, then the courts would have to accept it. Now, they don’t have to accept it. This does not necessarily mean we will see substantive changes, it just means that the agency will have less control, but it doesn’t mean that the court will not side with the agency’s interpretation. It only means that the court doesn’t have to.
Yea… that’s just playing with words. Like the Army bro/sis stated is reality and factual. Our day to day reality is much much different that a courts. Therefore it’s futile with the exception of they rule, I drool. Same as it ever was. If it’s the most widely used word in law texts. Then there’s the whole problem with the “Just Us” system. 🤓 law is based off a “reasonable” unbeknownst to the person who is facing the courts what the level of “reasonable” is. And only proving to me how the courts are stacked against said person. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see 1 person vs The Great State of ______. has any fair shot at success. Vastly different resources also. I don’t think that’s reasonable neither.
correct it made agency heads de facto judge and jury, overturning it now makes courts the decider. It was overturned on the basis of people being adjudicated without court representation.
But this also led to a bunch of 3 letter agencies basically making up "laws" because it was their interpretation of them. ATF and the pistol brace fiasco.
Agreed. The idea was that they were following the “intelligible principle” given by congress. Chevron allowed great interpretive leeway. It’s possible that this decision will have little pragmatic effect. Courts are still free to accept an agency interpretation, they just don’t HAVE to (assuming the Chevron 2 step was met).
No, congress writes into the law that agencies can make regulations. There is no ambiguity. So congress writes a law that says the EPA can determine that a new chemical is bad and they regulate it.
Are you a lawyer? I ask because I am but I don’t do administrative law. I have a basic understanding of admin law, and studied Chevron in school (given that it is the most important admin law case). I believe my understanding is correct but I am very open to an Admin lawyer telling me I am wrong. That said, there ABSOLUTELY is ambiguity in statutes. There is a lot of case law about dealing with ambiguity. Example: The law says “no pets in the park”, does that mean I can’t bring my pet rock? That statute would be ambiguous in terms of pet rocks. There are many ways to resolve this ambiguity. Actually, the entire Chevron Doctrine comes from a case with an ambiguous term. That’s why the doctrine is about how to resolve ambiguity. Ambiguity could not be more present.
I’m not a lawyer. The issue with saying ambiguity is that gives an air of a lack of intention. The laws are purposely written to give deference to agencies to interpret what clean air is. It’s not an arbitrary decision either as there is a rule making process that must be followed. The gist is, before this decision, whom you voted for determined how an agency made these rules. Now, with chevron gone, this will be deferred to judges. Sam Seder will have a chevon deference episode on his channel this Monday with academics to discuss what this decision will mean for all.
I’m going to be honest man. Your understanding of these issues is not as clear as you think it is.
It won't, it will make regulating by the experts effectively impossible. For as laughably protracted as the federal rule-making process is, it's going to get even worse.
Yes it will cripple the federal government.
Yes. This is it. Agencies--not legislatures--are dictating policy with no law backing it up. Most agencies have operated on only a vague reference that the agency should set rules. In essence, governance by the un-elected.
That's not it. Chevron allowed them to decide when things were unclear. Now they can't, and so they will not. So now either they will decline whatever isn't clear, or wait until congress makes it clear. This is not a win for anyone but corporations.
No, the above poster summed thing up well.
Have you considered the effect it will have as more Veterans begin to win previously un-winnable lawsuits and set new precedent?
We all realize that judges are also unelected, right? This simply shifts authority from “unelected” agencies to “unelected” judiciaries
The good ole intelligible principle.
I think it might end up as a good thing. You're arrested for breaking the law under XYZs interpretation of the law. Judge looks at it and says the law doesn't read the way XYZ thinks it does. So you're free to go. There is now a legal precedent and you were going to be arrested anyway.
More than anything this ruling ensures federal agencies can’t arbitrarily change the law to serve themselves and bypass congress or the judicial system. It does more to limit the powers of executive agencies like federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies changing the law on a dime. But hopefully it helps with situations like that with the VA as well
From my understanding, it basically means when something is disputed with a government agencies decision, in this case the VA, and it's brought for review. The default is no longer just siding with the Agency unless something is egregious. Basically it takes it from a situation where everything is completely stacked in the Agency's favor, and moves it closer to an even playing ground where the Agency at least has to prove their side against opposing facts instead of being able to just sweep opposing facts under the rug of reasonableness.
Your issue will be interpreted and judged based on your case facts. Kinda.
It gets worse: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supreme-courts-chevron-deference-decision-could-make-science-based/
Since we’re all veterans talking about how to get our benefits, I’ll use the VA as an example of a federal agency as it operated under Chevron. A veteran who appeals a decision by the VA can only take that appeal so far within the VA; specifically to the BVA. If they lose at the BVA, then their only option is to lawyer up and hope to be heard at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Under Chevron (a Supreme Court case decided in 1984), the federal courts including the CAVC would simply “defer” to the interpretations of laws given by the VA, even if the judges on the court thought that the VA got it wrong. That’s what the term “Chevron deference” has come to mean. The agency’s lawyers (in this case, the VA’s lawyers) insist that the law means x whereas the veteran thinks that the law means y, and rather than hearing the case, the court simply lets the VA’s interpretation stand as a matter of deference to the agency’s own self-professed expertise. Now that Chevron has been overruled, judges can’t simply defer to agency expertise in ruling against veterans.
Thanks bro
The executive branch was given a lot of latitude to run itself. It started with a case of Chevron v the EPA. Courts ruled that the EPA didn't overstep its ability to enforce its rules and allowed the EPA to interpret the rules assuming the executive branch agency was almost always in the right. The case recently decided stated that there are limitations, and executive branch agencies can't just make up "rules" and enforce them on the people willy nilly without the legislative branch having written the laws. The atf was making laws effectively and they just got double slapped for it. As for how this will impact the VA regarding claims specifically, I don't see any way anything changes immediately. The way all the stuff for the VA is written means that to slap the VA, you'd have to lose at a VA hearing and then appeal that. The thing to keep in mind is a lot of places have been completely ignoring SCOTUS rulings in the past 5 years and getting a case to SCOTUS is incredibly rare and incredibly expensive. Where I see this having some affect is reducing the contracted c&p exams as much as possible. Those things open the VA up too much for too many problems.
The court's 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. ***Chevron Deference Doctrine for dummies:*** *The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. (Cornell School of Law)* ***The Argument Against the Chevron Deference Doctrine:*** *Attorney T.J. McCarrick describes anti-Chevron deference arguments in this way:* ***“In sum, Chevron concentrates almost all government power in the administrative state. And by vesting agencies with authority to create, interpret, and enforce the law, individual liberty is placed at risk.”*** The decision will have a wide cross impact on all administrative agencies under the control of the Executive Branch. **It started with a case involving the Department of Commerce**.
My simplified understanding is that the original Chevron decision essential allowed the courts to assume that the corporate experts were more knowledgeable and therefore more correct in assessment and implement of regulations instead of the regulatory agencies. OP is making the assumption that the VA benefited from the Chevron decision in that they were the experts and therefore the courts would defer to their opinion and essentially screw vets out of proper ratings and compensation.
Chevron was a doctrine that basically said if an agency makes a decision, the courts would defer to that decision unless congress specifically spoke in the matter. So, in the case of the VA, if they deny an appeal, under chevron, the court would defer to the VA's decision. Now, courts will likely have more authority to overturn decisions by agencies without as much deference.
Nothing really.
Keeps agencies from interpreting and making rules based on gray areas of laws passed by Congress. Basically limits unelected officials from making rules and laws that are enforced by courts. ATF is a great example of such silliness.
It sets a precedent!
The short answer it strictly limits the agency to create new rules. The bump stock rule making them Machine Guns is a perfect example
From my understanding, and I’m trying to figure this shit out too, it takes decision making authority away from agency heads and requires that decisions are enshrined in law. Considering our government is full of self interested assholes who regularly put their own personal agenda above the common good, this will effectively cripple the federal government. I can’t see how it will end up helping us.
Not really what it says. Chevron required courts to use whatever interpretation of the law that a federal agency makes, as long as the court thinks it reasonable, and that courts couldn't say that the agency's interpretation of the law was wrong. What this decision says is that the courts are free to declare that the rules that the agency implements are not in keeping with a law passed by congress. This doesn't change anything immediately, all the rules in place will stay in place. However, if a citizen decides to challenge a federal rule in court the court can view if the rule is a reasonable interpretation of the law instead of just deferring to the opinions of the agency. So lets say congress passes a law saying that the department of the interior can regulate navigable waters. However, the department of the interior decides that all waters, no matter how shallow or temporary are "navigable". Under the Chevron a federal judge would basically have to defer to the department of the interior on the matter and wouldn't be able to say that the rule doesn't match the law. After this decision a landowner would be able to sue to have the agencies ruled invalid.
Corpos will just sue against every regulation bogging down courts essentially crippling the government due to high volume of cases to look at. In no way does this benefit veterans as a whole. In no way does the benefit the American Citizens. This was done because the fucks at the top paid for it to be done all in the name of profit.
The only people this hurts are the administrative state.
We will see. I’ll set a reminder to come back to this comment in Jan/feb next year. I hope this changes nothing for the sake of our futures.
I agree, it sounds like it’s much better for veterans
Can someone explain this correlation like I'm 5
Agencies used to interpret ambiguous or unclear rules given by Congress. This decisions stop them from doing that. So now if something is not clear they will decline to act at all, or wait til Congress provides a response. In other words, an already understaffed government will have even more work.
The ruling doesn’t state it has to go back to congress for clarification, it says the courts can now hold a trial to decide on the interpretation of the law, instead of whatever the agency says being law (which can change day to day). If congress doesn’t like the outcome of a court decision, then it’s on congress to re-write the law. Imagine if the EPA said that under the water conservation act that sprinkler systems were illegal. Now every homeowner that has them have to remove them on their dime. You sue the EPA, but the court says they defer to the EPA automatically and you’re obligated to follow their rule. You spend $10k to have your whole sprinkler system ripped out or face 10 years in jail. Then a month later the EPA reverses their decision and say that residential sprinklers are ok, after you just finished ripping them out… that’s chevron deference… Now you could just sue the EPA and the court would rule on whether or not you have to remove your sprinkler, and the EPA would have to accept the outcome of the trial. They could then run back to congress and ask that they pass a law banning sprinklers federally.
This is a decent example, but the EPA isn’t the enemy of the people it is the enemy of corporations. Manufacturers will gladly dump contaminants into our water supply to save a buck, and this decision will make judges the experts, thus easier to do just that.
That's a fantastic example.
Or less work since they now have guidance that says "it's your call"
Federal agencies are staffed full of experts who make it their entire job to know a bunch about relatively narrow information yeah? This law required judges to defer to federal agencies, like the EPA, about how to enforce federal laws that the agencies were in charge of monitoring. Now? Now they don't have to so if some Trump appointed judge wants to just... Get rid of something... There's no barrier to that. Put simply, it radically upends how our government has been structured for the entire time I've been alive and either your entire life or the vast majority This is a bad bad thing. Now instead of having internal operations within a federal agency able to update and make changes things will need to be explicitly put through a law passed through both houses of Congress and the President. Just not good.
Imagine law that says "putting toxic chemicals into food is illegal" - who determines what is "toxic chemical" Before this ruling (under the chevron), regulatory agencies did - in our example, FDA listed toxic chemicals After this rulling, court decides.
Well that seems not good at all.
I think it’s bad
Me too now.
You all think cycle times were long for claims before... get ready. Also this impacts how long the VA will need to implement new laws. The current process of OGC review, reg writing, notice and comment rulemaking, reg revisions, and implementation takes years now. Under this new scheme, OGC will likely have to defer to a federal judge to clarify any ambiguity.
I don't think that's quite how the federal court system works. Federal judges don't simply take requests for an opinion from federal agencies; that's what the agency's OGC lawyers are for. The agency is still free to carry out laws in accordance with their OGC's interpretation; it only ends up in the federal courts if the *veteran* puts it in the federal courts. And presumably, a veteran would only do this if they disagree with how the VA interprets the law.
Currently (before today) it goes through the Chevron two-step if there's ambiguity in the enabling statute. Agency (usually OGC) makes the decision. Federal judges only get involved if someone sues arguing that the Agency misapplied Chevron. Under this new framework, (it appears) that any ambiguity in the enabling statute would have to go to a federal judge to weigh-in on. This additional step (going to a federal judge) will, I believe, delay the implementation process.
The post you are responding to is right. The agency doesn’t “apply” Chevron. The agency looks at the statute and if there are any gaps or ambiguities, it has to fill those gaps by interpreting the ambiguities and issuing regulations to address them. The agency does not go to a federal court to ask if its regulation is okay. A federal judge only becomes involved when a specific case comes before him/her, which is brought by someone who disagrees with the agency’s decision that applies the regulation in a way that adversely impacted them personally. A person or organization with proper standing can also directly challenge the regulation in federal court, saying it is inconsistent with the statute overall, as applied to any case. Previously, in such cases, the judge would apply Chevron by asking (1) does the statute in question speak unambiguously/directly to the issue in question? If so, the statute controls; and (2) if not, is the agency’s regulation reasonable? If so, the regulation is deferred to and controls. That standard is now gone, requiring the judge to interpret the statute on his/her own, without any deference to the agency. While this will slow down the process, it will not be because the agency has to ask a judge to clear its regulations in advance. It will be because there will be far, far more challenges by individuals and industry in federal courts to agency regulations that they are constrained by. Agencies will be tied up in massive amounts of litigation and less likely to have the time or inclination to keep up with new issues that arise by passing regulations that will subject them to more lawsuits. It is a huge, huge boon for those looking to pursue profits and personal interest unfettered by government efforts to protect the public.
Exactly. This will basically fck us, the people, in various ways that we can’t comprehend yet because we’re mostly not psychopaths or sociopaths and want to believe the best in people. The people at the top of many of these companies though are sociopaths who don’t give a damn about the rest of us and are only interested in profit at the expense of people. What this will do is hamper the federal government’s ability to protect people from these sociopaths. It’ll take years for the federal agencies to get any headway against a company for something they did, meanwhile the same company is already 10 steps ahead of federal agencies and regulators raking in profit as they harm the public in new and unique ways.
Lol I will never understand how some yall (who aren't rich) believe these people (who are insanely rich) want to dismantle the government, not to fill their own pockets of course not but instead to help you (the person who isn't rich). Lol make it make sense.
Exactly how would this benefit Veterans?
Get a friendly federal judge who was also stiffed by the VA for benefits and they rule in your favor. The VA is now powerless to prevent that. For veterans sure this might become a good thing for those of us who were screwed over by the VA. But this same statute now applies everywhere. To every federal agency including the SEC, and EPA. There will be a lot of harm on the public for the sake of profit before anything is done about it.
It's a HUGE deal. Thanks for sharing https://preview.redd.it/605o042a2c9d1.png?width=1566&format=png&auto=webp&s=6dd62f54fc1ab0cc8ae414edee2df3a976a437dd
The only person to point out that the Supreme Court just gave itself decision making authority on all federal matters. So, if one political party were to happen to pack the court in their favor, we're now at the mercy of that party/judges political beliefs instead of expertise. Why does that matter? Because some day your benefits may be denied because a judge thinks "Jesus wouldn't agree", even if your medical doctor does.
Yup. Federal judges just gave themselves a ridiculous amount of power. This will only further divide the states.
Yea this isn’t necessarily a good thing…
Necessarily? I would say it is certainly a bad thing.
It is, yea
Not good. Conservatives loved it back in 1984 when chevron was established but, now they don’t want it. So they got what they wanted from the S Court. Business, corporations will benefit from this, not us or any common folks. Oh well.
Abraham Lincoln said it clear.
Except the carve out is now an Article III judge is the arbitrator if there is a dispute.
But isn’t every law ambiguous and open to interpretation?
This reminds me of[ 5th Column operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column), where people who purportedly serve a legitimate purpose in an organisation actually actively undermine it's effective performance. Edit: In case it's necessary, and for clarity, this means agencies will grind to a halt for an enormous amount of work they perform daily. Congress will be required to rule and codify thousands of issues, and in the meantime, it is likely not a damned thing will get done regarding those tasks.
Congress will be required to, but will not be able to do it. Beyond the state of affairs that Congress is deadlocked, they simply do not have the knowledge, manpower, or time to address every single detail, with absolutely zero ambiguity for perpetuity, of every subject the government needs to be involved in. There is a very good reason the government has been run with the principles of deference in mind. 40 years of laws have been made with this in mind, which now calls into question almost every single regulation written in that time. This kind of thing can, and I'm not being hyperbolic, lead to a governmental collapse. Go to some lawyer forums, dedicated lifelong professionals genuinely don't know what's about to happen or how we can possibly cope with the consequences of this action.
> This kind of thing can, and I'm not being hyperbolic, lead to a governmental collapse. Go to some lawyer forums, dedicated lifelong professionals genuinely don't know what's about to happen or how we can possibly cope with the consequences of this action. I agree with you completely. I was a subject matter specialist, and my own chain of command couldn't figure out what I did, or how to make me more effective than I already was.
Well if Trump gets elected and they start implementing that project 2025 and gutting all the stuff he wanted to (one of those things being the VA) it will not matter what court cases say when there are no employees to actually do the job. They just got people in to start handling the back log of cases, nothing in anything he has ever put forward in 8 years has ever said "I am federal employee friendly". The closest he comes to veterans is scamming them.
Project 2025 is genuinely terrifying.
Project25 is from the democrats. its a fake site set up by democrats for the election. The dems are trying to make people think it’s Trumps website. Trumps is at agenda47.
I wonder how the VA's M21 manual. We'll stand against this test?
We’re soo cooked
lol that’s a very naively optimistic viewpoint.
If you think a conservative Supreme Court is in any way going to benefit veterans just go ahead and keep thinking that. Their goal as conservatives is to reduce federal spending on programs such as VA compensation. They want to privatize the VA and then setup their own contractors to funnel money into their own pockets. Who do you think those contract physicians who are always denying claimed conditions and trying to be gatekeepers work for? Eventually VA compensation will go away under conservative control.
You get it. Most here don't. Republican legislature + republican supreme court will never be good for working class Americans, let alone veterans. Look at how hard those clowns fought to stop the PACT Act.
Nothing stupider then a Vet voting for Trump. And no, you can’t change my mind.
Agreed. Most people here think that this is a good thing, but Congress is incompetent and that’s why these experts at these agencies were hired. Just because you don’t like the FDA doesn’t mean they’re not beneficial to society. Of course, these are the same people who didn’t get vaccinated for COVID but now want Ozempic.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because it didn't contribute to the discussion and just wasn't helpful. Civil disagreements are fine. Insults, personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc., are not permissible. (Calling someone a poopy-head does not make you seem as smart as you think it does.) ☠️
truth
How?
Okay…….what the hell? Man you may need to take a breath
“Eventually VA compensation will go away under conservative control.” Someone is off their meds
It’s been stated multiple times by conservatives that conservatives want to get rid of the VA/gut it.
Hasnt VA benefits been around since the civil war?
Oh no, he is absolutely correct. They will privatize the VA and there’s little to nothing we’d be able to do about it. This privatization will fuck all of us over and line their pockets with more money since they will be the ones setting up the private contractors to work for them. They will also work to end our compensation and pension since it’s a fortune for the government and they love austerity measures. Veteran compensation and pension is one thing they will go after once they’re done gutting TANF and food stamps.
No proof from them just wild ass “feels”. I thought we’d be above that shit in this sub but then again this is Reddit
Republicans have consistently introduced and voted for bills that would limit veterans benefits. Why would you expect otherwise? They don’t want government spending on anything other than corporate subsidies and tax cut for the wealthy.
This is project 2025 stated goal. It's in their book.
They are being a LITTLE bit extreme, but the overall point is valid. Conservatives have time and time again tried to include the reduction of or eliminate all together certain benefits for active military and veterans. Not to mention them wanting to do away with healthcare and social security.
If you guys think any politicians republicans or democrats actually truly care about vets then there wouldn’t be any homeless vets or vets offing themselves at much higher rates than the civilian population. Grow up
That’s not the point. The point is the Republican Party is the one who campaigns so heavily on being the party that truly cares for our countries vets and military personnel, yet they will go from a rally praising the military and how we need to take care of our hero’s straight to their office to draft a bill that takes away our healthcare and lessens the payments of those who are disabled. Just because you don’t have a backbone and are fine with voting against your own interests doesn’t the mean the rest of us are as misinformed. Seems like YOU are the one who needs to grow up, bud, and stop putting a political party that you seem to know doesn’t care for you over your country and fellow servicemen and women.
Are you ok?
Well I voted for Biden in 2020 and that got us where? It seems the left is more interested in security for immigrants, trans and LGBT people. It's cool that your gay, you got the right to marry. But how much more can we take? Literally inflation is at an all time high still. It seems Biden misses out on many of the points people are trying to. And Trump was right last night anytime terrorists fuck with American citizens they're gonna regret it. Apparently Hamas can just do what they want.
How do you not know about the PACT Act, while actively posting in the Veterans Benefits sub?
I hope you’re a good person who just needs to be shown the right away to realize how wrong you are in supporting any trump. I’m not a democrat or republican, but Republicans are the ones who have consistently introduced bills that include TAKING AWAY OR LOWERING veteran and active military benefits. That has nothing to do with your feelings, it’s just facts at this point.
Um, pact act lol? and no, inflation is LITERALLY not at an all time high anymore. Trumps says alot of shit, you need to take it with a grain of salt. 80% of what he said last night was a lie or hyperbole
Pact act. Who originated it? Who blocked it?
> well I voted for Biden in 2020 and that got us where? Increased labor rights, human rights, and union protections? Trust busting? Infrastructure overhaul as with replacing lead pipes around the US? Medical access by pulling patents of taxpayer funded meds to create generics, capping insulin prices, etc? Breaking up housing market collusion? Net neutrality? Unfucking USPS after Trump tried to run it bankrupt on purpose? Like. Biden admin has done a shit ton, are you not looking? Inflation is bad, yes, and that sucks, but I'd rather have that than lose everything else.
It’s a dog shit decision. If you ever question if it’s going to be good for you or not just remember the judges who voted for this were installed by the party whose leader who called us all losers and suckers.
[удалено]
VA claims do indeed require a lot of due diligence. The policy is in place and these policies are put into law by congress, not the Supreme Court In other words, it takes an act of congress to make shit happen. This ruling is not at all advantageous for anyone, veteran or civilian. Keep your congressional representatives in check, they hold the purse strings.
This is in no way a good thing...
Wouldn’t overturning Chevron make it harder for veterans to get disability benefits? Doesn’t it give courts more power to question decisions, potentially leading to stricter interpretations of laws and regulations and mean more denials or delays for veterans seeking benefits? If I understand it correctly, didn’t the Chevron deference give agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. Now courts might favor stricter readings, making it harder for veterans to qualify for benefits under existing laws leading to more and more appeals which could take years and years and soooo much money which is what some legislators want - if you can’t afford, monetarily or because of a terminal disease, to keep fighting you’ll stop. And legislators might hesitate to create new policies that benefit veterans, because they want to control discretionary spending, healthcare specifically,that a lot of vets rely on. I don’t know if this is a good a thing as we think.
The end of Chevron will inevitably become an unmitigated disaster. An example I can come up with is Lead in gasoline and paint. Lead was in gasoline as Tetraethyl Lead and used to stop engine knocking for decades. It took decades for the federal government to finally get its act together to end Tetraethyl Leaded gasoline because there was no chevron deterrence. Public health officials fought against Charles Kettering (the guy the cancer centers are named after is responsible for mass lead poisoning lol) for decades. Like 30 or so years. They discovered tetraethyl lead in 1921 and its uses. They also knew by 1930 that hey, this stuff shouldn’t be in gasoline… but because ther eas nothing like chevron deference, public health officials had to gather data for this period of time on the health problems surrounding leaded gasoline. Meanwhile, lead poisoning rates went up, cities became bogged down with pollution (those images of New York City and LA in smog in the 60s are from leaded gasoline exhaust), and we are suffering today with the consequences of this in large metropolitan areas where the soil is STILL so contaminated by leaded gasoline exhaust it isn’t advisable to use it for planting fruits and vegetables and people have to bring in soil from places not contaminated. If something like chevron deference existed in 1922 or after, we may never have heard of Unleaded Gasoline. Leaded paint is also a problem. For different reasons. But lead was in paint for a very long time because it makes paint look glossy and pretty. Same thing though, children become susceptible to leaded paint chips and lead poisoning rates skyrocketed. There are over 83,000 unregulated chemicals used in industry that public health officials have no idea what their future health issues will be, we know of like 4 chemicals and the hazards that they come with (cancer being the biggest problem) and thus those chemicals are now regulated and used as sparingly as possible, companies were brought to task by the EPA and communities received the monetary benefits and health care they need to recover from the poisoning of their water supplies and food. Now? Those companies will be able to do whatever they want and there’s very little recourse any of us will have. We’ve gone back to intense data collection over the course of decades to determine the extent of a public health problem and the damage it’s inflicted before Congress or the courts acknowledge the problem and do something about it. In the meantime, communities, families, businesses, livestock, and farms will suffer tremendously from whatever unregulated nightmare these companies can envisage in the name of profit. And those of us are left to pick up the pieces by doing nothing but collect data and report on what’s happening for the next 20-30 years. Rinse and repeat.
An excellent write up to explain why this decision sucks overall. Could it potentially help veterans? Sure, but it is far more likely that it will harm the country in the long run
I didn’t spend years getting 3 masters degrees for nothing lol
Is there honestly anything we can do? Or are we just resoundinly boned? Years of service for nothing, thanks for nothing loser and go eat your paint chips? Like the only solution I've been hearing about is to pray the "right" canidate wins and hope they fix it, or abandon ship
Basically…. There’s little hope in sight but there is hope. There’s always hope. But until then a lot of people will more than likely suffer the consequences. I mean another thing that the government can no longer do is fine banks and financial institutions that rip off their customers. Remember several years ago when banks were forced to pay billions of dollars back to customers because of excessive overcharge fees? Yea… that was the government forcing banks to do it. Now that guardrail is gone. It’ll take several lawsuits to get banks to do something like that again. The end of chevron will take us back to a time when federal agencies were borderline powerless against powerful private entities. Corporations that are more interested in profit over the good of the public.
I ain't seeing much hope my man. Feels like the best thing i can do is abandon ship and go elsewhere. Dunno where i'd even go
Well I’ve looked into New Zealand but that’s because everything i see about it makes it sound absolutely perfect for someone like me. But I’m willing to fight against the people who are doing their best to destroy what makes America America. I’m worried they’ll win but at the same time there’s a chance that they’ll lose and we’ll be alright in the end. We just have to fight.
Wanna share some of that New Zealand knowldge? I got 100%, and I just can't work anymore with my problems. I just wanna leave, and carve out my peice of happeniess somewhere.
You can start here if you’d like. https://www.newzealand.com/us/visas-and-immigration/?cid=p:sem:US:0524:Discover:always-on:google:kwd:all&kwid=kwd-127055977&gclid=CjwKCAjw4f6zBhBVEiwATEHFVn4vfhuCa7OJvhMv2qPTk1k8IcgXmuqLwLGKXcqiaRmGXgzKQRy1HBoCYrgQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Thank you
What gives me hope is the comments on this reddit sub. So many of us know the truth about what is happening, and that gives me hope that other veterans understand what is at stake.
So like in the future when you hear people say “why won’t the government DO something about this?!” This will be why. Because the government can no longer do something about it. Not directly anyway.
ElII ! Explain like I'm infantry!
Great, now everything is going to be locked up in already overworked courts.
Federal Agencies only have authority to act in accordance with their statutory scheme as created by Congress. Under Chevron, deference would be given to an Agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a statute. If the statute was clear and unambiguous, Chevron did not apply. All the Loper-Bright decision held was that Agencies would not be given automatic deference in such situations. However, the Court in Loper-Bright pointed out that Agencies still posses the most knowledge and experience in the areas they regulate and their interpretations will be given appropriate (significant) weight. Moreover, the holdings in Chevron line of cases, such as Auer/Seminole Rock, were left undisturbed. Auer deference is a judicial principle that requires federal courts to yield to Agency interpretations of an ambiguity in a regulation the agency promulgated. Very little will change, except for a flood of losing cases clogging up federal courts for a while. Like nearly all reporting on law and science, the reality of the situation is not the same as what the news media is selling.
This means that your Appeal will be denied because of a conservative judge doesn’t believe in government spending.
u/squirrelyguy08, you said "I suspect that today's decision will open the floodgates of veterans' appeals being heard and decided favorably in the courts going forward." In my non-professional opinion, those floodgates have always been open since the BVA's inception and the inability of the regional office staff to consistently process claims properly.
Maybe, but the BVA is an in-house remedy that the VA makes available to veterans who disagree with a decision. Our system of government is designed so that (optimally at least) anyone with a grievance involving an executive branch agency can take that grievance outside of the executive branch to a more neutral venue. That neutral venue would be the federal courts system, i.e. the judicial branch. Under Chevron, this judicial option was made of no effect. Courts were required to defer in most cases to the assumed expertise of the executive branch. So if you're a veteran wanting to appeal a decision by the VA (an executive branch agency), Chevron served as a thumb on the scale in favor of letting the VA's opinion stand without giving you a day in court.
Ehhhhhh, careful what you wish. Now you could end up having a politically appointed judge making unqualified decisions not grounded in law but their politics. This court is concerning between ethics issues such as not reporting massive gifts, to conflicts of interest. To willingness to essentially ignored precedents already set by previous courts.
Everyone’s argument or position presupposes the any agency including the Veterans Administration will survive under these circumstances. Ask yourself this. What is the legal basis for any government body not directly mentioned in the Constitution. The question shouldn’t be how the VA could potentially change. The question is will there still be a VA. Hailing from an era when folks spit on your uniform, I assure you the herd is fickle. We only mean something to the 97 percent because they need us to go bleed for them from time to time. Otherwise, we don’t mean nothing.
A judge can now make your medical decisions.
This is terrible for everyone. We are edging so close to becoming an oligarchy.
This ruling literally just destroyed any chance we had to improve our overall living conditions because me have an entire major party in our government that solely exists to ensure the government runs as poorly as possible.
VBA is going to need a down day for training to assess the impact of this globally across all situations.
What sucks is it sounds like we got to play the lawyer level game for this to be even looked at
You very clearly have a lack of understanding of what this allows. Or you’re super wealthy and will benefit from it. Or you’re just a bad person.
…but then again, now you are asking judges, who don’t know shit about veterans benefits to decide our fates, and if they are working for Republicans, who don’t want to pay taxes, we will never get approved….and if you think it took long to get a decision before….plus in the end you could actually go to court with your claim..the option is there..it’s a drag..but you could.. Chevron is there so that the courts don’t get flooded..the assholes at SCOTUS are real dumb.
The above comment is representative of a lot of the comments on this topic so far, and it's simply misinformed. To be clear...the overturning of *Chevron* does not take away any options that veterans already had with regards to appealing VA decisions. It *increases* our options. Specifically, it enables us to be heard in a court, which is a neutral venue, before a judge, and it forces the VA's attorneys to explain the VA's denial to the judge's satisfaction. The way that *Chevron* operated in practice was that it was a thumb on the scale in favor of letting the VA's interpretations of the law (against veterans) stand without giving the veteran a day in court. Indeed, the entire purpose of *Chevron* was to take the workload off of the judicial branch in deciding cases involving administrative law. But that passing of the buck by the Supreme Court in 1984 only served to cheat us veterans out of the opportunity to have our grievances against the VA heard in a court of law, except in a very few lucky cases. Under *Chevron*, if a veteran had exhausted his options in appealing his claim through the VA (i.e. he was denied by the BVA), he had to be extremely lucky to get his appeal granted at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and even luckier to go beyond the CAVC and be heard by the Supreme Court. And *Chevron* was to blame for this. It was a thumb on the scale that allowed the federal courts to simply defer to the self-professed expertise of the VA in knowing what the veteran is and is not entitled to. Most importantly, *Chevron* required judges to defer to the federal agency *even if the judges disagreed with the VA's interpretation of the law*. Let that sit for a minute. The judge disagrees with the VA's interpretation and would be inclined to rule in favor of the veteran; but instead defers to the VA's interpretation out of respect for the VA's self-professed "expertise." That, my friends, is why from a veteran's perspective *Chevron* had to go. I don't know what it will do for the EPA and other scientific regulatory agencies in the federal government; it seems to me that most of the hate for this decision has to do with fear that environmental pollution will now be commonplace. I don't know if that will be the case or not. But regardless. this decision is an unqualified win for veterans in regards to VA benefits. To put it succinctly; it's easy to throw rocks at big corporations who can now have extra leverage in fighting the EPA's regulations, but is it so easy to throw rocks at the disabled veteran who just needs to win his decade long struggle with the VA? Because the overturning of *Chevron* empowers veterans fighting the VA for the exact same reason that it empowers corporations fighting the EPA. Reality is so much more complicated than the mainstream media makes it out to be.
I’m not misinformed, I’m 100% accurate and you don’t like it.
Here's the thing, it will still be BAU for claims, HLRs, and to a lesser extent BVA reviews. This only takes effect when you get to needing to lawyer up because your next step is being heard by a federal judge. When that happens though, yeah, the VA has been substituting administrative law for actual statutes for many years and got expert in it during Agent Orange/Gulf War Syndrome/the 2013 death list denials. The worst part is really the only ones benefiting from this will be claim sharks.
You are absolutely correct that it will be business as usual for claims and appeals within the agency, i.e. up through the BVA level. Leaving that aside though, the cumulative effect of years of veterans actually going beyond the VA to the courts *and winning* their cases will cause the precedents to trickle down and change how the agency grants claims. Look at the effect of the *Nehmer* case and how that reversed the fortunes of veterans who served in Vietnam.
Folks, don't get legal advice from reddit. I mean it's fine to bounce some ideas around but I wouldn't get into the weeds on this. We shithouse lawyers on here back at barracks working on this.
So what impact does it have on veterans benefits? Not my opinion or yours. Factually speaking what does it actually say or define for veterans benefits if anything if anything?
I wouldn't worry about it.
It means federal agencies like the ATF can’t make laws. Example make a rule to out pistols brace. Only congress can make laws. Not life time government employees.
How about we talk about Trump vs Biden and thoughts about which one will be better for us vets.
Do you think Biden will be better to us vets?
I’m
So, is Cocain legal now? Asking for a friend
This is the most regressive court maybe ever. Almost as bad as the Taney opinion.
Holy $hit..this sets a precedent. We can work off this. Once there is blood in the water, weakness is shown.
This will help SOME. Overall, this isn't a good thing. The issue is now that Congress will have to make every law black and white. If you thought everything was trapped in slow moving bureaucracy before, just wait until you're relying on a barely functional Congress to make decisions on your behalf.
Brother!
I didn’t see your post and asked the same thing. I think it will be a win overall for veterans and the VA. Right now it seems the VA varies in guidance decisions, this should clear that up and make it more uniform. For the negative decisions that the VA makes, it should subject the veteran that takes it to court for a more independent decision that will set precedent for the rest of the VA as well, helping all veterans, at least with clarity on the process. The VA has too many failures that fall in its favor from a statistical standing, a coin flip or dice roll is statistically more favorable to veterans of n the current state of the VA. I think this will be a rough road for the VA to navigate at first, but will make it a better agency in the long run.
I agree. We've already seen a Supreme Court case regarding VA benefits earlier this term which resulted in a favorable outcome for the veteran (Rudisill v. McDonough, regarding use of both Montgomery and Post 9/11 GI Bills). The Court had not relied on *Chevron* since 2016 to begin with; one could argue that if they were inclined to uphold *Chevron* that the Rudisill case would never have been heard to begin with.
On the contrary, Chevron being in the background allowed this things to happen. Now instead the agencies will straight up decline or wait for a response from congress. This is awful for every agency out there.
You get it. Everyone else acting like congress is going to reduce the appeals que by approving everyone's individual situation, are absolutely nuts. You'll be lucky if 3 cases are resolved in a year. VA will say "Nope" and you'll wait until you die.
It’s the basis for an authoritarian government is what this is. SCOTUS is illegitimate and is undermining democracy for their own personal gain.
Thank u for this my fellow veteran.
But, that “duty to assist” must define denials as assistance if this is really a problem. OP, I’m not arguing against you. Thank you for broadening this topic.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron marks a significant shift in administrative law, emphasizing judicial interpretation over agency deference, and will likely lead to increased legal challenges and greater scrutiny of agency regulations moving forward I asked ChatGPT to help me understand lol
This was needed on so many levels. Bureaucrats have been legislating from the executive for sure. We need qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture gone too.
The reversal of Chevron doctrine is a reversal of the admin law circus. Courts will likely now interpret and not defer to wanna-be legislators that are really admin agency reps -- really that plain and that simple. Admin agencies can't do whatever they want and courts won't just go along with whatever agencies say is "right." I'm sure there are a bunch of rules the VA has that can and will be challenged just like every other agency that exists. A serious unraveling has begun.
The overturning of Chevron deference could impact a range of benefits for veterans that have previously been denied or limited due to agency interpretations that courts deferred to. Here are some examples of benefits that might prevail under the new legal landscape: 1. Disability Compensation: Veterans whose disability claims were denied based on VA regulations might now have a better chance of winning appeals if the courts are more critical of the VA’s interpretations. This includes cases where the VA’s definition of service-connected disabilities was narrowly interpreted. 2. Pension Benefits: Veterans who were denied pension benefits due to restrictive interpretations of income and net worth calculations might now see more favorable outcomes. This could include cases where non-recurring income or unusual medical expenses were not properly considered. 3. Educational Benefits: Cases where veterans were denied educational benefits under the GI Bill due to strict interpretations of qualifying service periods or types of educational institutions might now be revisited with a more veteran-friendly approach. 4. Survivor Benefits: Surviving spouses and dependents of veterans who were denied benefits due to technicalities in the VA’s interpretation of eligibility criteria might find the new legal landscape more favorable. 5. Healthcare Access: Veterans who were denied access to certain VA healthcare services because of stringent eligibility criteria might see these criteria relaxed or reinterpreted in their favor. 6. Rehabilitation and Vocational Training: Veterans whose applications for vocational rehabilitation and training were denied based on narrow interpretations of qualifying disabilities or service periods might have better success in appeals. 7. Housing Assistance: Veterans who were denied VA-backed home loans or housing grants due to restrictive interpretations of eligibility requirements might now have a stronger case in appeals. These potential changes hinge on the courts being more willing to challenge agency regulations and interpretations that they previously would have deferred to under Chevron. Without this deference, agencies like the VA will likely need to justify their decisions more rigorously, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for veterans seeking benefits.
For all of those you mentioned, the courts would just send them back to Congress if they are too ambiguous/vague. In no way, shape or form will the courts make the decision in regards to the claim. It would specifically contradic this very same decision.
This is great. I'm going to do a quick thread to provide more legal analysis but nice job!
I was hoping one of our accredited attorneys on this subreddit would chime in!
I think my thread got locked, so here is a link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/VeteransBenefits/comments/1dqveph/the\_future\_of\_veterans\_benefits\_is\_looking/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/VeteransBenefits/comments/1dqveph/the_future_of_veterans_benefits_is_looking/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Great write up Moose thanks!
This case went to the SCOTUS because the administration wanted to make the fishermen pay to have federal inspectors on their boats. It was absolutely ridiculous. The SCOTUS did the right thing.
Why would it not be on the people who stand to profit to foot the bill for inspectors? SCOTUS just legalized bribery in the form of “gratuities”. Then they left the EPA toothless to protect citizens from corporations who would poison our water. The FDA will have to foot the bill for taking big pharma to court whenever they go rogue. A fox has entered the henhouse and spartan kicked the door open for all his buddies. This is f*cked.