28
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)
Law
398 readers
1 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here's how it was before:
Congress passes a law: "No one shall wear socks and sandals"
The executive agency, in charge of enforcement rules, decides on if they meant you can't wear either or just both at the same time.
Then in court the judges would have to assume that Congress meant to prohibit wearing either if the agency came to that conclusion.
Now: When the judges hear the case they might still side with the agency but if they feel the other side has a more reasonable interpretation they can side again the agency.
Really dumbed down example but basically now courts don't have to accept to the executive agency's interpretation over the other party's.
Thanks for the ELI5.
Does me that if you can influence a judge for a favorable ruling (even if it's against the executive agency's), you're good?
Yes, now if you have an interpretation and the agency has one the judge has to judge them both equally. If you can offer a more compelling understanding of the law the judge should favor your perspective. But if the agency has a better one they will win.