That's absolutely 100% false. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA considerable authority to shut down a food factory if it is not adhering to regulations and laws regarding safety.
Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?
But who is making those regulations if congress doesnt write those specific regulations into law? Isn't that the whole point of this being overturned.. the FDA no longer can make regulations that arent explicitly outlined in a bill.
The FDA can absolutely make regulations so long as they are done with the authority granted to them in the law. The problem has been agencies, such as the FDA whom I have worked with for going on a decade, have grossly overstepped their congressional authority. When challenged, the government's case is that the administrative regulators know best, and because of Chevron, the courts should defer to them, even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority.
This is not about specific regulations, it's about the authority to write those regulations and where the boundaries are.
Therein lies the issue: Regulators have gone beyond their authority, not only into what is unreasonable, but what is not backed by statute. Chevron said the courts should give deference, unfortunately that deference has gone too far.
Taking your point however, I think congress will eventually be forced to act on this. We do need some deference to regulators, but that deference has been turned into legislative abdication. This decisions sets that right.
When congress is ready to write a law that gives greater deference to regulators they will. Until then, in my opinion, this was a proper decision of government restraint.
I don’t think I can support an objective idea that it’s “gone too far” when the decision was on ideological boundary. This was political activism not jurisprudence.
Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?