Bitcoin
Supreme Court overturns Chevron, reducing 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 28th.
The Chevron doctrine originated in a 1984 case titled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which created a test for determining when U.S. federal courts should defer to agency interpretations of laws and statutes.
Impact on SEC Authority
According to Peterson, the decision to nullify the Chevron doctrine limits the SEC’s “unilateral interpretative power” against Bitcoin.
Peterson wrote:
“This is Bitcoin’s BIGGEST victory. Far more important than any case or law.”
He stated that the decision will require courts to thoroughly 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 he said The Chevron demise does not entirely remove the SEC’s ability to take enforcement action, but it does open up the question of whether Congress has granted the SEC the authority to regulate cryptocurrencies as a security.
Terrett said Chevron’s demise could impact the SEC case against Consensys and his claim that certain tokens are securities. She noted:
“The SEC’s allegation that Consensys is an unregistered broker-dealer engaged in the offer and sale of unregistered securities [may have] less weight in the eyes of a judge than [before].
In JanuaryAttorney Paul Clement presented oral arguments in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo – a case that led to the takedown of Chevron on June 28.
He called crypto a “concrete example” of the Chevron-related impasse and claimed that Congress has not addressed crypto because agencies can claim authority over such matters. He implicitly referred to the SEC and its chairman. 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 of that into [his] regulatory scope.
He later said someone “will litigate whether cryptocurrency is an investment contract” among other issues, adding that the Chevron override could “move things … in the right direction” when it comes to handling such cases.
Chevron struck down in non-crypto cases
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chevron in two cases on June 28 – Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The New Alliance for Civil Liberties (NCLA), responsible for the first case, said the ruling means that gaps and ambiguity in statutes no longer grant agencies statutory authority. The latest ruling instead requires Article III courts to address these ambiguities.
In striking down the doctrine, Justice John Roberts said:
“The only way to ‘ensure that the law will not just change erratically but will develop in an intelligible and principled way’ is for us to leave Chevron behind.”
The cases are not specifically related to crypto or the SEC. However, the NCLA emphasized the far-reaching reach of the ruling, noting that it prevents “all federal agencies” from abusing deference and calling it “a fundamental reform whose full impact will be revealed over time.”