Regulation
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron, Reduces SEC’s ‘Unilateral Power’ Over Cryptocurrencies: Expert
Economist Timothy Peterson said the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron will prevent the SEC from acting as an “automatic subject matter expert” on cryptocurrencies June 28.
The Chevron doctrine originated in a 1984 case titled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which created a test to determine when U.S. federal courts must defer to agencies’ interpretations of laws and statutes.
Impact on SEC Authority
Peterson said the decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine limits the SEC’s “unilateral interpretive power” over Bitcoin.
Peterson wrote:
“This is the BIGGEST win for Bitcoin. Far more important than any case or law.”
He said the decision will require courts to carefully examine the SEC’s anti-crypto stance. The change could produce fairer regulations and a more balanced legal landscape, including reducing the ability of SEC staff to define assets as securities.
FOX Business reporter Eleanor Terrett She said Chevron’s demise doesn’t entirely eliminate the SEC’s ability to take enforcement action, but it does raise the question of whether Congress has granted the SEC the authority to regulate cryptocurrencies as securities.
Terrett said Chevron’s demise could impact SEC lawsuit against Consensys and his claim that certain tokens are securities. He observed:
“The SEC’s allegation that Consensys is an unregistered dealer engaged in the offering and sale of unregistered securities [may have] less weight in the eyes of a judge than [before].
In JanuaryAttorney Paul Clement presented oral argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which resulted in the Chevron ruling being overturned on June 28.
He called cryptocurrencies a “real world example” of Chevron-related gridlock and said Congress hasn’t addressed cryptocurrencies because agencies can claim authority over such matters. He implicitly referred to the SEC and its chairman. Author: Gary Genslerstating:
“There’s an agency head out there who thinks…he’s going to wave his wand and say the words ‘investment contract’ are ambiguous, and that’s going to suck all this up [his] regulatory scope.
He later said that someone will “file a lawsuit to determine whether cryptocurrencies are an investment contract” along with other issues, adding that Chevron’s decision could “move things … in the right direction” when it comes to handling such cases.
Chevron Reverses Non-Cryptocurrency Cases
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Chevron in two cases: Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The New Alliance for Civil Liberties (NCLA), responsible for the first case, said the decision means that gaps and ambiguity in the statutes no longer grant agencies statutory authority. The latest decision instead requires Article III courts to address such ambiguities.
In overturning the doctrine, Justice John Roberts said:
“The only way to ‘guarantee that the law will not simply change irregularly, but will develop in an understandable and principled way’ is to abandon Chevron.”
The cases are not specifically related to cryptocurrencies or the SEC. However, the NCLA emphasized the far-reaching scope of the decision, noting that it prevents “any federal agency” from abusing deference and calling it “a fundamental reform whose full impact will be revealed over time.”