Source: https://news.ballotpedia.org/author/jace-lington/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:18:47+00:00

Document:
A federal judge threw out a Trump administration rule designed to expand association health plans (AHP). The Department of Labor (DOL) rule allowed self-employed people to join associations that provided group health insurance plans like those offered by employers. United States District Court Judge John Bates’ 43-page opinion, issued on March 28th, said that the DOL rule used an unreasonable interpretation of federal law that he must set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Chevron doctrine.
The Chevron doctrine is a two-step framework that compels federal judges to defer to agency interpretations of laws in some cases. When judges review agency interpretations of law under Chevron they must first determine whether the law was clear. If the law is ambiguous, then the judge will defer to the agency interpretation unless it is unreasonable. The APA requires judges to invalidate agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
In this case, Judge Bates held that the DOL rule was designed as an end-run around the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that ignored the language and purpose of both the ACA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
A new Arizona law directs state regulatory agencies to issue licenses or certifications for new residents who were already licensed in their previous state. The law allows people who move to Arizona to continue working in their career field without having to attend state-specific training. For example, licensed nurses in Texas would not have to go through a new process to become recertified as nurses in Arizona before moving and working in an Arizona hospital.
The law lists requirements for new residents seeking Arizona licenses to work in regulated fields. The law requires applicants to have a current certification in the same discipline in another state and have no record of disciplinary action or of the loss of a license in another state.
Biestek v. Berryhill asked whether agency experts must provide data supporting their testimony during benefits hearings. On April 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “not categorically.” The court held that reviewing courts could uphold agency decisions even when experts withhold requested data.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a 6-3 majority, argued that a blanket rule against experts refusing to reveal data used to support their conclusions would be too broad. She held that reviewing courts should adopt a case-by-case approach. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that agency experts should provide support for their allegations when asked.
When the Social Security Administration (SSA) decides whether to award disability benefits to applicants, it follows an informal adjudication process laid out in the Social Security Act of 1935. SSA administrative law judges (ALJs) conduct hearings to determine whether the agency should accept or reject disability claims. If someone challenges an SSA benefits decision in court, judges will uphold the agency’s factual determinations if a reasonable person would accept that the supporting evidence was adequate.
Courts reviewing factual determinations made by the SSA have to make sure the agency based its decisions on substantial evidence. Court precedent defines substantial evidence as that which a reasonable mind would accept as supporting a conclusion.
In this case, Michael Biestek went before an SSA ALJ for a hearing to see if there was any work he could perform with his disabilities. A vocational expert working for the SSA testified that there were hundreds of thousands of jobs available for someone like Biestek. The ALJ did not require the expert to share the surveys she used to make her assessment when Biestek’s lawyer asked to see them. Based on the expert testimony, the ALJ rejected part of Biestek’s disability application. Biestek challenged the partial denial of benefits, saying that the expert’s refusal to share her data meant that her testimony fell short of the substantial evidence standard.
During oral argument on March 27, 2019, for Kisor v. Wilkie, Justice Stephen Breyer said overturning Auer deference “sounds like the greatest judicial power grab since Marbury v. Madison.” He argued that, without Auer, judges could make decisions best left to experts in executive agencies. Justice Neil Gorsuch held a different view, arguing that federal law requires independent judges to decide all questions of law. Gorsuch said the promise of independent judges seemed to him “a significant promise, especially to the least and most vulnerable among us, like the immigrant, like the veteran” facing an agency in court.
The case involves a dispute between James Kisor, a marine veteran, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) over whether he should receive retroactive disability benefits for PTSD he developed during the Vietnam War. The VA denied Kisor’s initial disability claim in 1983 and granted him benefits in 2006. At issue is the VA’s interpretation of whether certain records were relevant to its decision to grant Kisor benefits with an effective date in 2006 instead of 1983. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to defer to the expertise of the VA or to apply their own view of what the VA regulation means.
A new rule banning bump stocks will remain in force while critics challenge it in court. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected two requests to pause the ban while lower courts decide pending cases. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) bump stock rule went into effect on March 26. It requires owners of bump stock devices to destroy them or surrender them to the ATF. Bump stock owners who do not comply could face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The ATF rule followed a February 2018 presidential memorandum signed by President Trump. The memorandum told the attorney general to propose a rule banning devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. He signed the memorandum in response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting where a gunman killed 58 and wounded hundreds more.
On March 25, the D.C. Circuit issued a stay for members of gun rights groups involved in a lawsuit before the court. That means the rule will not apply to members of the groups until the court decides their case. The 10th Circuit issued a stay for Clark Aposhian, a gun rights lobbyist challenging the ban with the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Bump stocks are a firearm accessory that makes it easier to shoot faster. Supporters of the ban say that the rule protects members of law enforcement and the public from mass shooters. Opponents say agencies like the ATF do not have the constitutional authority to ban bump stocks by redefining legal terms. They argue that only Congress may write criminal laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether courts should still defer to agency interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations. Under Auer deference, courts uphold agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent. Supporters of Auer deference see Kisor v. Wilkie as a threat to the foundation of American administrative law while opponents see the case as an opportunity to restore separation of powers principles.
The case is scheduled for oral argument on March 27, 2019.
Auer deference refers to federal courts yielding to agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations made by that agency. The practice comes from precedents established by two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co (1945) and Auer v. Robbins (1997).
In Kisor, the court will decide whether to overrule those precedents. The case involves a dispute between James Kisor, a marine veteran, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) over whether he should receive retroactive disability benefits for PTSD he developed during the Vietnam War. The VA denied Kisor’s initial disability claim in 1983 and granted him benefits in 2006. At issue is the VA’s interpretation of whether certain records were relevant to its decision to grant Kisor benefits with an effective date in 2006 instead of 1983.
The U.S. House passed a bill that would change printing requirements for the Federal Register. The Federal Register is a legal newspaper published every federal business day by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Government Publishing Office (GPO). The Federal Register lists new administrative agency rules and regulations in addition to policy statements and interpretations of existing rules. It also contains presidential documents (such as executive orders) and notices for public hearings, grant applications, and administrative orders.
The Federal Register Modernization Act passed the House by a 426 to one vote on March 12, 2019. The bill requires that the Federal Register be published, but not necessarily in print form with duplicate copies of each particular document. In times when the GPO cannot print the Federal Register as usual, the bill allows it to publish the Federal Register on a website. The bill also requires a time stamp for each document in the Federal Register showing when the GPO made them available for public inspection.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.