Economist Timothy Peterson argues that the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Chevron Principles will prevent the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from acting as a cryptocurrency expert today. June 28.

The Chevron Principle comes from the case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, created a test to determine when U.S. federal courts must follow the agency's interpretations of laws and regulations.

Impact on SEC jurisdiction

According to Peterson, the decision to rescind the Chevron rule limits the SEC's “unilateral interpretation authority” over Bitcoin.

Peterson wrote:

“This is the BIGGEST win for Bitcoin. More important than any lawsuit or law.”

He asserted that the decision will require the court to scrutinize the SEC's anti-cryptocurrency stance. This change could create fairer regulations and a more balanced regulatory landscape, including reducing the SEC staff's ability to define assets as securities.

FOX Business reporter Eleanor Terrett says Chevron's termination does not completely eliminate the SEC's enforcement capabilities, but opens up the question of whether Congress will empower the SEC to regulate cryptocurrency as a security. .

Terrett said Chevron's termination could affect the SEC's lawsuit against Consensys and its claim that some tokens are securities. She noted:

“The SEC's claim that Consensys is an unregistered broker-dealer engaged in the offer and sale of unregistered securities may carry less weight in the eyes of a judge than it once did.”

In January, attorney Paul Clement presented oral arguments in the case Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo – the lawsuit led to the cancellation of Chevron on June 28.

He called cryptocurrency a “concrete example” of the impasse involving Chevron and asserted that Congress has not addressed cryptocurrency because agencies can claim jurisdiction over such matters . He referred to the SEC and its chairman, Gary Gensler, saying:

“There's a certain agency head who thinks… he'll wave a magic wand and say that the words 'investment contract' are vague, and that will pull all of this into the scope of the he."

He then stated that someone will “lawsuit whether cryptocurrencies are investment contracts” among other issues, adding that canceling Chevron could “move things… in the right direction” as handle such cases.

Chevron canceled in non-crypto cases

The Chevron Principle comes from the case Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council of 1984, is an important legal principle in United States administrative law that regulates when federal courts must defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of the law. This principle involves two main steps: first, the court must determine whether Congress has clearly stated its intention on the particular issue in the law; If the law is unclear or ambiguous, the court must determine whether the administrative agency's interpretation is reasonable. If the administrative agency's interpretation is found to be reasonable, the court must follow that interpretation. This gives administrative agencies flexibility in interpreting and enforcing the law, enabling them to adapt and manage complex issues effectively.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron in two cases on June 28 — Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

In striking down this principle, Justice John Roberts said:

“The only way to ‘ensure that the law will not fluctuate, but will develop in a principled and understandable way,’ is for us to leave Chevron behind.”


Source: https://tapchibitcoin.io/chien-thang-lon-cho-bitcoin-khi-toa-an-toi-cao-my-vua-giang-cho-sec-mot-don.html