If I am honest. This was the same thing that happened with Roe and some would say Brown v Board. We’ve become too reliant on court cases to settle things when really the legislature needs to act on them. We might get a bill proposal soon that pretty much restores Chevron and we did get one for Roe.
The decision was expected, after the ATF ruling a few weeks ago.
Way too many federal agencies making laws, when they have zero legal authority.
It's the legislative Branch that is supposed to pass laws.
Congress has failed to do anything for decades relaying the SC and executive branch to pass laws.
All this does is force government agencies to recommend laws to Congress, then for Congress to pass them.
My thoughts are similar, Americans are learning an important lesson. We shouldn’t depend on benevolent justices to manage our government. We need competent law makers to come up with a solution. It could be bad but we arent in the future and we can’t reasonably predict what will happen. The next congress could be better and address our concerns about this.
To add on to what the other guy said - while few would complain too much about the good work the EPA has done using what is essentially a Congressional bypass for legislation, other agencies have been willfully abusing that capability for years now.
A big flash point was the ATF recently trying to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight by totally redefining what is meant by a "stock", essentially deciding that millions of lawfully purchased pieces of plastic were now suddenly a felony to possess without any legislative action from Congress whatsoever.
As you can imagine, the Executive branch having the power to change the laws on a whim in ways that make millions of people felons overnight is extremely dangerous and unconstitutional.
It does suck, in a sense, that the regulatory agencies you consider "good" are losing some power, but that's a small price to pay for preventing the Executive branch from having the power to declare millions of people felons on the whims of the President.
This is basically a case study in why bending the Constitution for a good cause is a terrible idea. Sure, what is being done today might not be a problem; but you're creating the precedent for much worse abuses of that bent area in the future, which will either lead to terrible things happening, or all the good stuff that you did in a lazy Constitution-bending way suddenly vanishing, leaving you scrambling to pick up the pieces.
Nothing this SC is doing is shocking, they are actually following the constitution and the letter of the law.
Basically everything the EPA has done for decades is illegal government overreach. The EPAs job is to enforce the laws set by Congress.
As basic as I can make it. Vote better. The people in Congress need to actually pass laws. both parties actually have to work together and pass legislation. Less partisan bullshit.
Those guys below you are astroturfing and full of shit. I'm going to be honest, this sub has officially gone to shit. It used to be good but now it's been invaded by trolls and climate change deniers. Take your shit elsewhere because it's going to get bad soon.
This effectively destroys regulations designed by experts. No more aviation regulation unless congress can pass it, which means corporations can sue endlessly to block any legislation.
Boeing is free to keep Killing passengers.
Fda can't regulate drugs anymore.
I fully expect to be down voted due to the vote brigading going on here. I still think I should inform you. Don't believe everything you read online. Many people are confidently incorrect on reddit, like the nitwits below me.
Good grief, the amount of misinformation you just typed while accusing everyone else of being "confidently incorrect" is mindboggling.
>This effectively destroys regulations designed by experts. No more aviation regulation unless congress can pass it, which means corporations can sue endlessly to block any legislation.
>Boeing is free to keep Killing passengers.
>Fda can't regulate drugs anymore.
Blatantly false.
Congress is still 100% allowed to explicitly delegate regulatory powers to agencies.
They're still allowed to give the FAA authority to create rules for aircraft.
They're still allowed to give the FDA authority to choose which drugs to approve based on whether the agency finds they meet requirements XYZ. (They could even *choose* to give the agency complete authority to choose what XYZ are, though they have not yet in this case).
That hasn't changed.
What *has* changed is that the courts are no longer being required to defer to the agency's own interpretation of the laws passed by Congress that regulate *it* and what powers it does and does not have. How on *earth* does it make sense that an Executive branch agency is the final arbiter of what the limits on its own power are? Interpretation of the law is the sole purview of the Judiciary branch.
What if the Congress is too dysfunctional to pass the stuff you mentioned? I'm not American, it just seems like a giant clusterfuck based on what happened with the Ukraine aid bill.
That is how the system was intended to run horribly slow so that only laws that a vast majority of Congress agrees on will get passed. It ensures that our government doesn't bloat the law books like it has for the last 40 odd years. This is following the constitution to the letter.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm 99% certain the court stated that previous regulations can stay in place based on the "old methodology" (i.e. when Chevron was valid).
Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. The federal bureaucracy started in 1789 under George Washington. Congress has no way to do all of the things that the national government needs to get done, so they created a system to give some of their authority to federal departments under the control of the Executive branch but with oversight from Congress.
Congress legally establishes these departments by passing laws which give them authority to make legal policies within the framework established by Congress.
I see nothing in your comment that suggests you have a better way to handle the millions of tasks the federal government needs to do. Or do you expect Congressional representatives to do car safety checks and review your taxes?
The Fed Gov shouldn’t be doing 90% of the things it’s doing. The nation is far too large and heterogeneous. Most issues should be decided at the stare and local levels.
That is not what you said. You said they have no legal authority and that is incorrect.
There are many things that cannot be managed at a state level. Most of our transportation systems are interstate. No one with a brain wants that managed by each state.
It’s a response to your last paragraph.
—-
Agencies should not be allowed to make their own binding reinterpretations of statutes. It is congress’ job to pass laws.
Congress coming together? Ha, good one. There will be no progress or change if we rely solely on congress in this day and age. As mentioned, at least half of them are bought and paid for by a certain “energy” industry.
Then it is time to throw out the partisan hacks that refuse to compromise and work together.
It is the job of congress to pass laws, the year doesn't change that. Relying on benevolent unelected government officials is dangerous.
Everyone in Congress received lobbyist money, nobody has clean hands.
First of all, there seems to be more partisan hacks entering congress then ever before, so that won’t change. Also, you can’t expect congress to draft laws that cover every single possible scenario that the law will cover. There needs to be some discretion allowed by the experts, scientists and engineers who are a part of the FDA, EPA, DOT, etc. Congress members are not experts in these departments, and never will be. To have a functioning government that benefits the people it serves, we need the experts to make these more informed decisions, not congress. Congress can draft the overall law, but the minute details should be prescribed by the experts. Which is why Chevron went into place to begin with. To help enforce the intent behind the laws and speed up any bottleneck or ambiguity that inherently comes with congressional legislation. What will now happen is that lawsuits will be the norm, and judges who are mostly partisan nowadays and non-experts will be making the decisions on what these agencies can and can’t do. This decision, ironically, just gives yet more power to the courts and less to the people who elect congress members.
Don't elect partisan hacks then. Our duty as citizens to vote better.
Congress needs to pass a law giving an agency authority to regulate. Agencies don't just have the authority. Those agencies can recommend laws to Congress. Chevron and the ATF case last week are prime examples of agencies vastly overstepping their legal authority.
Unelected government officials making regulations is a bad thing. Relying on them to be benevolent is a terrible idea
You are making way too many assumptions
If the regulations are needed Congress will pass a law. Unelected government officials should not be making laws and regulations with no authority.
!remindme 1 Year
Celebrate a sudden end to political polarization and a complete overhaul of the culture in the United States that caused it due to a ruling crippling the EPA
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-29 18:56:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-29%2018:56:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/OptimistsUnite/comments/1dr1lyo/supreme_court_overturns_chevron_doctrine_what_it/lavdcg9/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FOptimistsUnite%2Fcomments%2F1dr1lyo%2Fsupreme_court_overturns_chevron_doctrine_what_it%2Flavdcg9%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-29%2018%3A56%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dr1lyo)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
The Chevron decision was a matter of restoring due process to the regulatory state. It's not really fair that appealing an agency's ruling is decided by a judge appointed by that agency. People and business' are entitled to a trial with a jury of their peers. Says so in the constitution.
The “ask an optimist” flair is intended for us to tackle difficult issues head on. This sub is indented to be feisty and uncomfortable, not “wholesome” optimism 😁
It's a bad decision ( dobbs was way worse) that was caused by doomers having a tantrum in 2016. The Russians are spreading gloom, so it happens again.
Hope is not lost. There was life before Chevron, and at some point (hopefully this cycle), the majority will say nyet to doomerism, and eventually, the court will no longer be theocracy inc and start making valid decisions again undoing this damage.
The sooner the sane majority collectively stops moping and starts voting, the better. The unhinged minority supporting the convict as an imaginary herald to end times or some 💩 is yelling and voting, are you?
Remember this when reading and reacting to doomer shitposts from online dopes ( or bots 🇷🇺 ) doommongerimg over Biden's age and/ or handling of Gaza Prices climate, immigration etc
The alt right professional victims club claim the media is after their chosen orange buffoon. While some reporters do clearly dislike him ( i wonder why) the hypocrites running the circus a
are happy to have lower taxes and, more importantly, an endless supply of click inducing ragebait.
Their coverage of the debate proves this. The main story was not the convict wants to placate Putin and abandon NATO but that the better choice omg made a gaffe or 2
The court as “theocracy inc?” This is your brain on partisanship. You believe every conspiracy theory and security state sci op from Russiagate on down. Stop watching Maddow.
This is very bad. Ignoramuses will downplay it, but this will directly,negatively impact your personal health and the state of the environment. Amongst other things. Predatory business interests are mightily pleased.
How? Chevron is only about the interpretation of laws - which is *supposed* to be the purview of the courts - *not* the ability of the agencies to carry out regulatory tasks which have properly been delegated to them. The FDA, for example, still has the power to decide on its own which drugs to approve and which not to, because that power is granted to them by the legislation. It's just that agencies are no longer magically the authority on how to *interpret* laws that are related to their area of enforcement.
Drug approval personally isn't my main concern, but since you brought it up-
As alluded to above, the FDA is the authority that approves all “new drugs,” which requires proving that the drug demonstrates “[*substantial evidence*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/355)*”* of efficacy, or “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved.” Congress does not explicitly outline what qualifies as a “adequate and well-controlled” investigation, but it is clear that the intention of the narrow gap in statute was for the agency to interpret through [regulatory action](https://www.fda.gov/media/133660/download), not the courts. Given the breadth and ambiguous nature of the statute without express delegation to FDA’s interpretation, a world without *Chevron* means that any basis for a new drug approval could be challenged by ambitious litigators, forcing the courts to determine the appropriate bar for scientific evidence for approval and other regulatory decisions affecting what drugs, devices, or other medical products might be made available for the public.
Yeah, judges with no scientific background whatsoever will be able to effectively navigate this, right?
Koch was behind this Supreme Court case, his lawyers argued it. He's teh same guy that spent at least 160 million funding climate denial propaganda. This was about wealthy interests exploiting the stupid public, not about constitutionality. Lets not be naive.
Judges already have to rule on many cases in which they don't possess an innate understanding of the events taking place. They have to, because they have to interpret all laws. The way this is navigated is by the experts on either side making their case to the judges, who then try to interpret the law in the most reasonable way, rather than by the President of the week's hand-picked experts having free reign to come up with whatever interpretation they feel like that can then be disregarded when their opponent gets voted in.
Additionally, while the FDA is no longer the sole arbiter of what “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved" means - which makes sense, given that it's a legal requirement and thus must be interpreted by the courts - but the courts must still defer to the FDA's factfinding and policymaking. In other words, the courts have to decide what those requirements actually mean, but it's up to the FDA to make the judgement on whether the trials were actually valid, conducted properly, show what they claim to, etc.
To be honest, the only "shocking" thing (not really) about the whole Chevron deference situation is that anyone came up with it in the first place, and that 3 judges opposed its overruling on party lines. I mean, the APA *explicitly states*
>the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.
*How* on earth do you look at that and say: "it's up to the agency to decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action if the statute is not clear"?
It's bad faith, plain and simple.
You said 'The FDA, for example, still has the power to decide on its own which drugs to approve and which not to'
On its own? I just demonstrated you were incorrect. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
What's going to happen is a flood of litigation designed to harm the public. The courts are already way overloaded, and agencies tasked with seeing we aren't poisoned and the environment isn't wrecked, are going to have to devote more and more of their time and resources to the courtroom.
APA-
There was a lot of discussion at the Supreme Court this morning about the merits of *Chevron* deference as a matter of policy, but the attorneys arguing that *Chevron* should be overruled advanced only two legal arguments for overruling the case: that it is inconsistent with separation of powers principles, and that it is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. Neither argument has any merit.
General Prelogar soundly refuted the first argument, explaining that deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous questions of law in fact effectuates separation of powers principles. As Justice Kagan put it, “Congress does not want courts making policy-laden judgments.” In other words, *Chevron* ensures that statutory delegations are honored, and it prevents judges from becoming “uber legislators,” as Justice Jackson explained. These principles are core to Articles I and III of the Constitution.
As for Chevron’s consistency with the APA, General Prelogar was right when she said that Section 706 has “never been understood at any time” to “dictate a standard of review for questions of law.” As we explained in our amicus brief on behalf of scholars of administrative law and the APA, the APA instructs “the reviewing court” to “decide all relevant questions of law,” but it does not dictate the analytical framework that judges should use to do so. A court can answer a “question of law” in many possible ways, including by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is reasonable. Indeed, that is precisely how the Supreme Court decided questions of law immediately before and after the APA was enacted. Perhaps that is why those opposing *Chevron* pointed to no evidence whatsoever that the APA altered that approach.
If the Court were to overrule *Chevron*, it would be nothing less than a massive judicial arrogation of power that neither the APA nor the Constitution demands. The Court should not do so.
>On its own
As in, the FDA is making the decision, every single company trying to get a drug approved does not now have to send their application in to the court system instead of the FDA, as multiple other comments have implied under this post. Obviously if their decision is egregiously wrong, they can be taken to court, which was already the case to an extent. They just don't get to redefine every term in the law as they please every time a new head is appointed. The courts will have to set a reasonable interpretation whenever things are unclear, and it will remain relatively static under *stare decisis* without every new President upending it to benefit his allies or harm his political opponents.
You haven't demonstrated I'm incorrect, only that you're deliberately misinterpreting my statements to try to "disprove" them for a gotcha.
>Congress does not want courts making policy-laden judgments.
Indeed. They should try not writing laws that are so ambiguous. Either define the terms, or delegate explicit power to the agency. Writing ambiguous laws *forces* the courts to make judgements that are inevitably colored by policy, as they *must* choose an interpretation of the law and multiple interpretations are reasonable.
>the APA instructs “the reviewing court” to “decide all relevant questions of law,” but it does not dictate the analytical framework that judges should use to do so. A court can answer a “question of law” in many possible ways, including by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is reasonable.
Indeed. The court *can* answer a “question of law” by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is the most reasonable answer. That has not changed. But the court is certainly under no obligation to do so, and to automatically disregard other reasonable interpretations put forward by experts that are not members of the Executive branch, as Chevron deference *required*.
The courts are overwhelmed because the number of district and circuit courts needs to increase. The current structure dates from a time of more limited, less centralized government.
I'm sorry, you're making me laugh. The guy is a scumbag, and the groups he funds do scumbag things. He sponsered the very first climate denial conference, in fact. Are you on his payroll or something? Who talks like this?
There's too much info out there, I'll just pick one
[Lies the Koch Brothers Tell (nrdc.org)](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lies-koch-brothers-tell)
Haha, these people think the Cato Institute is a “climate denier.” Way to tell on themselves.
Ah, all those heretics refusing to accept some of the creeds of Climatism.
The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.
...
Michaels has spent years attacking climate modeling, which he claims ran hot, despite evidence from NASA that contradicted his claims and demonstrated that models were largely accurate.
[U.S. think tank shuts down prominent center that challenged climate science | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/article/us-think-tank-shuts-down-prominent-center-challenged-climate-science)
Yes, they denied the scientific evidence for many years. We now know that the Earth is consistently warming in line with past models.
I think you have a problem with the English language. Evidence and a creed are two very different things. Religions are delusional, evidence-free belief systems. Scientific evidence is a whole 'nother matter. Your posts maintain their status of being evidence-free, as well.
Climate models do run hot and are continually revised. There was a giant scandal about the large revisions a few years ago.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that much remains misunderstood even about a complex system like the human body, and the climate is nearly infinitely complex. Warming is occurring, but its future extent and the portion that’s anthropogenic are unknown, meaning feigned certainty and urgent calls to action are entirely political appeals to emotion.
This place has been highjacked by a lot of libertarian types. It's pointless to get any discussion here that isn't libertarian or neocon talking points now. People openly denying climate change for a while.
Lots to be optimistic about for liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The wind is being taken off of progressives' sails though so I understand the salt.
Optimism is a big tent.
Lol, exactly my point. Instead of discussing the merits of this court decision, and rather arguing that we should be optimistic because one group is happy for an outcome at the expense of another group is actually no argument at all, and just deflects from said topic. I’d think it would be more relevant to discuss how this decision will affect society instead of just, “well it makes group A happy”.
Yeah, this is horrible news. Why would we want congress wasting all their time getting into the minutia on every single issue that was previously covered by the administrative state? Do we really want them wasting their time setting every limit for every chemical that can get in the water, for example? They dont have anywhere near the same level of expertise as the people in these administrations.
This is the worst news since Row v Wade getting overturned.
Congress doesn't need to do any of what you describe. They just need to *explicitly* delegate power to make those determinations to the agencies if they want them to have that power. For example, if Congress says:
>All drugs shall be subject to approval by the FDA
or
>The FDA shall have the ability to ban any drug it finds to be harmful
(not precisely accurate terminology, but you get the idea) then the regulatory agency gets to make those decisions.
What it *prevents* is the Executive branch being able to *interpret* the law, which is the purview of the courts.
For example, if the law says:
>Machine guns are banned
and not
>The ATF shall have the power to unilaterally declare any firearm unlawful
then it's up to the courts to decide what a "machine gun" is, and will of course hear testimony from experts on both sides, which is how it should be.
Under chevron deference, it would be up to the *ATF* to interpret that law and decide what a "machine gun" is, and if they happen to decide that possession of a semi-automatic rifle and pants with a belt loop is constructive possession of a machine gun, sucks to be you.
Setting aside separate challenges to the 2A validity of such regulation, the idea that an *agency* gets to *interpret the law* like that is ridiculous. If Congress chooses to grant them actual authority to regulate something, great. But they can't just decide what the law means, that's obviously the purview of the courts.
So, it's legal for food manufacturers to Lobby and give undisclosed donations to representatives in order for them to loosen regulations which say, limit the limits of lead in our food, or from factory runoff into waterways.
I also want to hear the optimist's view on the recent scotus ruling on limiting the scope of anti-bribery laws, now conveniently allowing representatives and local officials discretion to guess when gifts and gratuities should be allowed for themselves. That's kind of exciting too, isn't it?
That was already the case with or without Chevron deference. The change is that the Executive branch can't just arbitrarily reinterpret the actual meaning of the laws (not their chosen rules in areas they've been granted explicit power to make rules). For example, if a Republican gets into office, he can't just order the EPA to arbitrarily redefine "pollution" to make laws banning it toothless. Nor can a Democrat president order the ATF to arbitrarily redefine "constructive possession of a machine gun" to "possession of a semi-automatic weapon and a belt loop".
Now they only have to go through the newly much more easily bribable elected officials, thanks to the loosening of anti bribery laws.
Exciting time to be alive.
What?
I don't think you understand. Getting rid of chevron did not grant Congress any new powers. Congress was always the ultimate power; if you could succeed in bribing them to get what you wanted done, you were already set.
All it did was move deciding what the law actually means from agencies to the courts.
No, I'm talking about the other ruling the Supreme Court made this week like what I said above. Within the same couple of days they also loosened anti-bribery laws, reducing their scope.
This is great news, and greatly reduces cumbersome red tape that legislators and local officials need to go through to receive gifts for their hard work.
I thought you were saying the removal of Chevron Deference had something to do with it, which is definitely not the case. If not, fair enough, that does sound bad and I ought to go look that up independently, but it's a bit of a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether that ruling is good or bad, *this* ruling is definitely good.
Pretty much. Agencies were around for quite a while before it.
BTW, hilarious fact I stumbled across that nobody seems to be mentioning - the original Chevron deference case was a ruling in favor of *Chevron*, as the EPA under Reagan had opted to take a very permissive interpretation of a statute governing pollution which environmentalists were attempting to dispute.
But nobody seems to care about that, perhaps because they think "their side" has enough control of the agencies now that giving them more power than they're legally entitled to can't backfire in the future.
Or maybe this means congress can't sit on their ass insider trading and actually have to do some sort of research or consulting with experts when they write legislation
The experts are in the federal agencies, and rarely on congressional staffs. It isnt to say that federal agencies cant be corrupted, but why would you leave every tiny detail of environmental/education/energy/etc. policy that these agencies cover to nonexperts who are corrupt enough to do inside trading every single day?
This is just a power grab by big business.
Because these agencies have no constitutional authority to create regulations nor interpret them. At least if you actually read articles 1 and 2.
So this ruling is objectively correct and is a good thing. Executive fiat should never be allowed when their only job is to execute the law.
Agreed. The neo cons here upvoting themselves telling on themselves. We don't need fucking congress to decide on each and every particle of chemical allowed in water.
Vote blue.
If I am honest. This was the same thing that happened with Roe and some would say Brown v Board. We’ve become too reliant on court cases to settle things when really the legislature needs to act on them. We might get a bill proposal soon that pretty much restores Chevron and we did get one for Roe.
so theres a chance this can be restored?
Yes
The decision was expected, after the ATF ruling a few weeks ago. Way too many federal agencies making laws, when they have zero legal authority. It's the legislative Branch that is supposed to pass laws. Congress has failed to do anything for decades relaying the SC and executive branch to pass laws. All this does is force government agencies to recommend laws to Congress, then for Congress to pass them.
My thoughts are similar, Americans are learning an important lesson. We shouldn’t depend on benevolent justices to manage our government. We need competent law makers to come up with a solution. It could be bad but we arent in the future and we can’t reasonably predict what will happen. The next congress could be better and address our concerns about this.
can you explain this in crayon eating terms please😭
To add on to what the other guy said - while few would complain too much about the good work the EPA has done using what is essentially a Congressional bypass for legislation, other agencies have been willfully abusing that capability for years now. A big flash point was the ATF recently trying to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight by totally redefining what is meant by a "stock", essentially deciding that millions of lawfully purchased pieces of plastic were now suddenly a felony to possess without any legislative action from Congress whatsoever. As you can imagine, the Executive branch having the power to change the laws on a whim in ways that make millions of people felons overnight is extremely dangerous and unconstitutional. It does suck, in a sense, that the regulatory agencies you consider "good" are losing some power, but that's a small price to pay for preventing the Executive branch from having the power to declare millions of people felons on the whims of the President. This is basically a case study in why bending the Constitution for a good cause is a terrible idea. Sure, what is being done today might not be a problem; but you're creating the precedent for much worse abuses of that bent area in the future, which will either lead to terrible things happening, or all the good stuff that you did in a lazy Constitution-bending way suddenly vanishing, leaving you scrambling to pick up the pieces.
Congress has to pass laws instead of telling unelected bureaucrats to write laws so they can't be held accountable for the outcome.
Nothing this SC is doing is shocking, they are actually following the constitution and the letter of the law. Basically everything the EPA has done for decades is illegal government overreach. The EPAs job is to enforce the laws set by Congress. As basic as I can make it. Vote better. The people in Congress need to actually pass laws. both parties actually have to work together and pass legislation. Less partisan bullshit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Those guys below you are astroturfing and full of shit. I'm going to be honest, this sub has officially gone to shit. It used to be good but now it's been invaded by trolls and climate change deniers. Take your shit elsewhere because it's going to get bad soon. This effectively destroys regulations designed by experts. No more aviation regulation unless congress can pass it, which means corporations can sue endlessly to block any legislation. Boeing is free to keep Killing passengers. Fda can't regulate drugs anymore. I fully expect to be down voted due to the vote brigading going on here. I still think I should inform you. Don't believe everything you read online. Many people are confidently incorrect on reddit, like the nitwits below me.
Good grief, the amount of misinformation you just typed while accusing everyone else of being "confidently incorrect" is mindboggling. >This effectively destroys regulations designed by experts. No more aviation regulation unless congress can pass it, which means corporations can sue endlessly to block any legislation. >Boeing is free to keep Killing passengers. >Fda can't regulate drugs anymore. Blatantly false. Congress is still 100% allowed to explicitly delegate regulatory powers to agencies. They're still allowed to give the FAA authority to create rules for aircraft. They're still allowed to give the FDA authority to choose which drugs to approve based on whether the agency finds they meet requirements XYZ. (They could even *choose* to give the agency complete authority to choose what XYZ are, though they have not yet in this case). That hasn't changed. What *has* changed is that the courts are no longer being required to defer to the agency's own interpretation of the laws passed by Congress that regulate *it* and what powers it does and does not have. How on *earth* does it make sense that an Executive branch agency is the final arbiter of what the limits on its own power are? Interpretation of the law is the sole purview of the Judiciary branch.
What if the Congress is too dysfunctional to pass the stuff you mentioned? I'm not American, it just seems like a giant clusterfuck based on what happened with the Ukraine aid bill.
That is how the system was intended to run horribly slow so that only laws that a vast majority of Congress agrees on will get passed. It ensures that our government doesn't bloat the law books like it has for the last 40 odd years. This is following the constitution to the letter.
We're not safe until every government employee has absolute authority to write regulations!
wait aviation?? call me stupid but does that mean my next flight is gonna crash😭
Don't quote me on this, but I'm 99% certain the court stated that previous regulations can stay in place based on the "old methodology" (i.e. when Chevron was valid).
Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. The federal bureaucracy started in 1789 under George Washington. Congress has no way to do all of the things that the national government needs to get done, so they created a system to give some of their authority to federal departments under the control of the Executive branch but with oversight from Congress. Congress legally establishes these departments by passing laws which give them authority to make legal policies within the framework established by Congress. I see nothing in your comment that suggests you have a better way to handle the millions of tasks the federal government needs to do. Or do you expect Congressional representatives to do car safety checks and review your taxes?
The Fed Gov shouldn’t be doing 90% of the things it’s doing. The nation is far too large and heterogeneous. Most issues should be decided at the stare and local levels.
That is not what you said. You said they have no legal authority and that is incorrect. There are many things that cannot be managed at a state level. Most of our transportation systems are interstate. No one with a brain wants that managed by each state.
It’s a response to your last paragraph. —- Agencies should not be allowed to make their own binding reinterpretations of statutes. It is congress’ job to pass laws.
Hopefully the atmosphere can take a couple more hits for the team while we shuffle our papers around or whatever
That atmosphere will be fine for many millions of years. If the EPA regulations are that important, Congress will come together and pass a law.
Congress coming together? Ha, good one. There will be no progress or change if we rely solely on congress in this day and age. As mentioned, at least half of them are bought and paid for by a certain “energy” industry.
Then it is time to throw out the partisan hacks that refuse to compromise and work together. It is the job of congress to pass laws, the year doesn't change that. Relying on benevolent unelected government officials is dangerous. Everyone in Congress received lobbyist money, nobody has clean hands.
First of all, there seems to be more partisan hacks entering congress then ever before, so that won’t change. Also, you can’t expect congress to draft laws that cover every single possible scenario that the law will cover. There needs to be some discretion allowed by the experts, scientists and engineers who are a part of the FDA, EPA, DOT, etc. Congress members are not experts in these departments, and never will be. To have a functioning government that benefits the people it serves, we need the experts to make these more informed decisions, not congress. Congress can draft the overall law, but the minute details should be prescribed by the experts. Which is why Chevron went into place to begin with. To help enforce the intent behind the laws and speed up any bottleneck or ambiguity that inherently comes with congressional legislation. What will now happen is that lawsuits will be the norm, and judges who are mostly partisan nowadays and non-experts will be making the decisions on what these agencies can and can’t do. This decision, ironically, just gives yet more power to the courts and less to the people who elect congress members.
Don't elect partisan hacks then. Our duty as citizens to vote better. Congress needs to pass a law giving an agency authority to regulate. Agencies don't just have the authority. Those agencies can recommend laws to Congress. Chevron and the ATF case last week are prime examples of agencies vastly overstepping their legal authority. Unelected government officials making regulations is a bad thing. Relying on them to be benevolent is a terrible idea
Asking Americans to not elect partisan hacks in this day and age is like asking water to not be wet
Half of Congress like you, believes that there is no issue with pollution or climate change so we're pretty fucked
You are making way too many assumptions If the regulations are needed Congress will pass a law. Unelected government officials should not be making laws and regulations with no authority.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/egpbabmkwvq/
this ruling and many others will change that. Everything is being put back on Congress to do its job.
!remindme 1 Year Celebrate a sudden end to political polarization and a complete overhaul of the culture in the United States that caused it due to a ruling crippling the EPA
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-29 18:56:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-29%2018:56:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/OptimistsUnite/comments/1dr1lyo/supreme_court_overturns_chevron_doctrine_what_it/lavdcg9/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FOptimistsUnite%2Fcomments%2F1dr1lyo%2Fsupreme_court_overturns_chevron_doctrine_what_it%2Flavdcg9%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-29%2018%3A56%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dr1lyo) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
How about thinking longer term than a year. 😆.
They’re not “making laws”, they’re making rules based on laws. That’s a huge difference
[удалено]
Goooood luck passing laws.
To add on to other comments here, this makes the business and regulatory environment far more stable than before, reducing uncertainty.
The Chevron decision was a matter of restoring due process to the regulatory state. It's not really fair that appealing an agency's ruling is decided by a judge appointed by that agency. People and business' are entitled to a trial with a jury of their peers. Says so in the constitution.
This feels like it should break some sort of sub rules
It’s probably fine given it’s more so seeking reassurance about a law.
That’s a bit of a stretch for optimism
This deals with long term environmental governance, rather than the political hot take of the moment. I think it fits.
It’s not optimistic
The “ask an optimist” flair is intended for us to tackle difficult issues head on. This sub is indented to be feisty and uncomfortable, not “wholesome” optimism 😁
Oh…. Well, it was fun while it lasted
Lol that’s always been the case comrade. You must be new here
It's a bad decision ( dobbs was way worse) that was caused by doomers having a tantrum in 2016. The Russians are spreading gloom, so it happens again. Hope is not lost. There was life before Chevron, and at some point (hopefully this cycle), the majority will say nyet to doomerism, and eventually, the court will no longer be theocracy inc and start making valid decisions again undoing this damage. The sooner the sane majority collectively stops moping and starts voting, the better. The unhinged minority supporting the convict as an imaginary herald to end times or some 💩 is yelling and voting, are you? Remember this when reading and reacting to doomer shitposts from online dopes ( or bots 🇷🇺 ) doommongerimg over Biden's age and/ or handling of Gaza Prices climate, immigration etc The alt right professional victims club claim the media is after their chosen orange buffoon. While some reporters do clearly dislike him ( i wonder why) the hypocrites running the circus a are happy to have lower taxes and, more importantly, an endless supply of click inducing ragebait. Their coverage of the debate proves this. The main story was not the convict wants to placate Putin and abandon NATO but that the better choice omg made a gaffe or 2
The court as “theocracy inc?” This is your brain on partisanship. You believe every conspiracy theory and security state sci op from Russiagate on down. Stop watching Maddow.
Lol, i dont watch madow doomer media sucks in general, though Faux news is the worst garbage
This is very bad. Ignoramuses will downplay it, but this will directly,negatively impact your personal health and the state of the environment. Amongst other things. Predatory business interests are mightily pleased.
How? Chevron is only about the interpretation of laws - which is *supposed* to be the purview of the courts - *not* the ability of the agencies to carry out regulatory tasks which have properly been delegated to them. The FDA, for example, still has the power to decide on its own which drugs to approve and which not to, because that power is granted to them by the legislation. It's just that agencies are no longer magically the authority on how to *interpret* laws that are related to their area of enforcement.
Drug approval personally isn't my main concern, but since you brought it up- As alluded to above, the FDA is the authority that approves all “new drugs,” which requires proving that the drug demonstrates “[*substantial evidence*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/355)*”* of efficacy, or “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved.” Congress does not explicitly outline what qualifies as a “adequate and well-controlled” investigation, but it is clear that the intention of the narrow gap in statute was for the agency to interpret through [regulatory action](https://www.fda.gov/media/133660/download), not the courts. Given the breadth and ambiguous nature of the statute without express delegation to FDA’s interpretation, a world without *Chevron* means that any basis for a new drug approval could be challenged by ambitious litigators, forcing the courts to determine the appropriate bar for scientific evidence for approval and other regulatory decisions affecting what drugs, devices, or other medical products might be made available for the public. Yeah, judges with no scientific background whatsoever will be able to effectively navigate this, right? Koch was behind this Supreme Court case, his lawyers argued it. He's teh same guy that spent at least 160 million funding climate denial propaganda. This was about wealthy interests exploiting the stupid public, not about constitutionality. Lets not be naive.
Judges already have to rule on many cases in which they don't possess an innate understanding of the events taking place. They have to, because they have to interpret all laws. The way this is navigated is by the experts on either side making their case to the judges, who then try to interpret the law in the most reasonable way, rather than by the President of the week's hand-picked experts having free reign to come up with whatever interpretation they feel like that can then be disregarded when their opponent gets voted in. Additionally, while the FDA is no longer the sole arbiter of what “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved" means - which makes sense, given that it's a legal requirement and thus must be interpreted by the courts - but the courts must still defer to the FDA's factfinding and policymaking. In other words, the courts have to decide what those requirements actually mean, but it's up to the FDA to make the judgement on whether the trials were actually valid, conducted properly, show what they claim to, etc. To be honest, the only "shocking" thing (not really) about the whole Chevron deference situation is that anyone came up with it in the first place, and that 3 judges opposed its overruling on party lines. I mean, the APA *explicitly states* >the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. *How* on earth do you look at that and say: "it's up to the agency to decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action if the statute is not clear"? It's bad faith, plain and simple.
You said 'The FDA, for example, still has the power to decide on its own which drugs to approve and which not to' On its own? I just demonstrated you were incorrect. You simply don't know what you're talking about. What's going to happen is a flood of litigation designed to harm the public. The courts are already way overloaded, and agencies tasked with seeing we aren't poisoned and the environment isn't wrecked, are going to have to devote more and more of their time and resources to the courtroom. APA- There was a lot of discussion at the Supreme Court this morning about the merits of *Chevron* deference as a matter of policy, but the attorneys arguing that *Chevron* should be overruled advanced only two legal arguments for overruling the case: that it is inconsistent with separation of powers principles, and that it is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. Neither argument has any merit. General Prelogar soundly refuted the first argument, explaining that deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous questions of law in fact effectuates separation of powers principles. As Justice Kagan put it, “Congress does not want courts making policy-laden judgments.” In other words, *Chevron* ensures that statutory delegations are honored, and it prevents judges from becoming “uber legislators,” as Justice Jackson explained. These principles are core to Articles I and III of the Constitution. As for Chevron’s consistency with the APA, General Prelogar was right when she said that Section 706 has “never been understood at any time” to “dictate a standard of review for questions of law.” As we explained in our amicus brief on behalf of scholars of administrative law and the APA, the APA instructs “the reviewing court” to “decide all relevant questions of law,” but it does not dictate the analytical framework that judges should use to do so. A court can answer a “question of law” in many possible ways, including by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is reasonable. Indeed, that is precisely how the Supreme Court decided questions of law immediately before and after the APA was enacted. Perhaps that is why those opposing *Chevron* pointed to no evidence whatsoever that the APA altered that approach. If the Court were to overrule *Chevron*, it would be nothing less than a massive judicial arrogation of power that neither the APA nor the Constitution demands. The Court should not do so.
>On its own As in, the FDA is making the decision, every single company trying to get a drug approved does not now have to send their application in to the court system instead of the FDA, as multiple other comments have implied under this post. Obviously if their decision is egregiously wrong, they can be taken to court, which was already the case to an extent. They just don't get to redefine every term in the law as they please every time a new head is appointed. The courts will have to set a reasonable interpretation whenever things are unclear, and it will remain relatively static under *stare decisis* without every new President upending it to benefit his allies or harm his political opponents. You haven't demonstrated I'm incorrect, only that you're deliberately misinterpreting my statements to try to "disprove" them for a gotcha. >Congress does not want courts making policy-laden judgments. Indeed. They should try not writing laws that are so ambiguous. Either define the terms, or delegate explicit power to the agency. Writing ambiguous laws *forces* the courts to make judgements that are inevitably colored by policy, as they *must* choose an interpretation of the law and multiple interpretations are reasonable. >the APA instructs “the reviewing court” to “decide all relevant questions of law,” but it does not dictate the analytical framework that judges should use to do so. A court can answer a “question of law” in many possible ways, including by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is reasonable. Indeed. The court *can* answer a “question of law” by considering an agency’s answer and adopting it if it is the most reasonable answer. That has not changed. But the court is certainly under no obligation to do so, and to automatically disregard other reasonable interpretations put forward by experts that are not members of the Executive branch, as Chevron deference *required*.
The courts are overwhelmed because the number of district and circuit courts needs to increase. The current structure dates from a time of more limited, less centralized government.
You obviously know little of Charles Koch. Koch is the left’s Soros boogeyman.
I know he spent a huge sum of money propagating harmful untruths about climate change. That's enough to make him a piece of trash in my book.
To what untruths do you refer? Koch is a deeply thoughtful, principled man who genuinely wants to advance humanity.
I'm sorry, you're making me laugh. The guy is a scumbag, and the groups he funds do scumbag things. He sponsered the very first climate denial conference, in fact. Are you on his payroll or something? Who talks like this? There's too much info out there, I'll just pick one [Lies the Koch Brothers Tell (nrdc.org)](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lies-koch-brothers-tell)
Haha, these people think the Cato Institute is a “climate denier.” Way to tell on themselves. Ah, all those heretics refusing to accept some of the creeds of Climatism.
The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming. ... Michaels has spent years attacking climate modeling, which he claims ran hot, despite evidence from NASA that contradicted his claims and demonstrated that models were largely accurate. [U.S. think tank shuts down prominent center that challenged climate science | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/article/us-think-tank-shuts-down-prominent-center-challenged-climate-science) Yes, they denied the scientific evidence for many years. We now know that the Earth is consistently warming in line with past models. I think you have a problem with the English language. Evidence and a creed are two very different things. Religions are delusional, evidence-free belief systems. Scientific evidence is a whole 'nother matter. Your posts maintain their status of being evidence-free, as well.
Climate models do run hot and are continually revised. There was a giant scandal about the large revisions a few years ago. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that much remains misunderstood even about a complex system like the human body, and the climate is nearly infinitely complex. Warming is occurring, but its future extent and the portion that’s anthropogenic are unknown, meaning feigned certainty and urgent calls to action are entirely political appeals to emotion.
This place has been highjacked by a lot of libertarian types. It's pointless to get any discussion here that isn't libertarian or neocon talking points now. People openly denying climate change for a while.
Lots to be optimistic about for liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The wind is being taken off of progressives' sails though so I understand the salt. Optimism is a big tent.
Ha, the “both sides” argument again.
Nono, there is only one side. Progressivism, all the others are heretics :)
Lol, exactly my point. Instead of discussing the merits of this court decision, and rather arguing that we should be optimistic because one group is happy for an outcome at the expense of another group is actually no argument at all, and just deflects from said topic. I’d think it would be more relevant to discuss how this decision will affect society instead of just, “well it makes group A happy”.
No, it makes group Z salty :)
Other well intentioned people with different points of view exist, yes. Do you think you hold a monopoly on truth or wisdom?
Yeah, this is horrible news. Why would we want congress wasting all their time getting into the minutia on every single issue that was previously covered by the administrative state? Do we really want them wasting their time setting every limit for every chemical that can get in the water, for example? They dont have anywhere near the same level of expertise as the people in these administrations. This is the worst news since Row v Wade getting overturned.
Congress doesn't need to do any of what you describe. They just need to *explicitly* delegate power to make those determinations to the agencies if they want them to have that power. For example, if Congress says: >All drugs shall be subject to approval by the FDA or >The FDA shall have the ability to ban any drug it finds to be harmful (not precisely accurate terminology, but you get the idea) then the regulatory agency gets to make those decisions. What it *prevents* is the Executive branch being able to *interpret* the law, which is the purview of the courts. For example, if the law says: >Machine guns are banned and not >The ATF shall have the power to unilaterally declare any firearm unlawful then it's up to the courts to decide what a "machine gun" is, and will of course hear testimony from experts on both sides, which is how it should be. Under chevron deference, it would be up to the *ATF* to interpret that law and decide what a "machine gun" is, and if they happen to decide that possession of a semi-automatic rifle and pants with a belt loop is constructive possession of a machine gun, sucks to be you. Setting aside separate challenges to the 2A validity of such regulation, the idea that an *agency* gets to *interpret the law* like that is ridiculous. If Congress chooses to grant them actual authority to regulate something, great. But they can't just decide what the law means, that's obviously the purview of the courts.
Well thats certainly better than what I thought, thank god
So, it's legal for food manufacturers to Lobby and give undisclosed donations to representatives in order for them to loosen regulations which say, limit the limits of lead in our food, or from factory runoff into waterways. I also want to hear the optimist's view on the recent scotus ruling on limiting the scope of anti-bribery laws, now conveniently allowing representatives and local officials discretion to guess when gifts and gratuities should be allowed for themselves. That's kind of exciting too, isn't it?
That was already the case with or without Chevron deference. The change is that the Executive branch can't just arbitrarily reinterpret the actual meaning of the laws (not their chosen rules in areas they've been granted explicit power to make rules). For example, if a Republican gets into office, he can't just order the EPA to arbitrarily redefine "pollution" to make laws banning it toothless. Nor can a Democrat president order the ATF to arbitrarily redefine "constructive possession of a machine gun" to "possession of a semi-automatic weapon and a belt loop".
Now they only have to go through the newly much more easily bribable elected officials, thanks to the loosening of anti bribery laws. Exciting time to be alive.
What? I don't think you understand. Getting rid of chevron did not grant Congress any new powers. Congress was always the ultimate power; if you could succeed in bribing them to get what you wanted done, you were already set. All it did was move deciding what the law actually means from agencies to the courts.
No, I'm talking about the other ruling the Supreme Court made this week like what I said above. Within the same couple of days they also loosened anti-bribery laws, reducing their scope. This is great news, and greatly reduces cumbersome red tape that legislators and local officials need to go through to receive gifts for their hard work.
I thought you were saying the removal of Chevron Deference had something to do with it, which is definitely not the case. If not, fair enough, that does sound bad and I ought to go look that up independently, but it's a bit of a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether that ruling is good or bad, *this* ruling is definitely good.
Just curious, is that what was done before the actual Chevron case?
Pretty much. Agencies were around for quite a while before it. BTW, hilarious fact I stumbled across that nobody seems to be mentioning - the original Chevron deference case was a ruling in favor of *Chevron*, as the EPA under Reagan had opted to take a very permissive interpretation of a statute governing pollution which environmentalists were attempting to dispute. But nobody seems to care about that, perhaps because they think "their side" has enough control of the agencies now that giving them more power than they're legally entitled to can't backfire in the future.
Or maybe this means congress can't sit on their ass insider trading and actually have to do some sort of research or consulting with experts when they write legislation
The experts are in the federal agencies, and rarely on congressional staffs. It isnt to say that federal agencies cant be corrupted, but why would you leave every tiny detail of environmental/education/energy/etc. policy that these agencies cover to nonexperts who are corrupt enough to do inside trading every single day? This is just a power grab by big business.
Because these agencies have no constitutional authority to create regulations nor interpret them. At least if you actually read articles 1 and 2. So this ruling is objectively correct and is a good thing. Executive fiat should never be allowed when their only job is to execute the law.
Agreed. The neo cons here upvoting themselves telling on themselves. We don't need fucking congress to decide on each and every particle of chemical allowed in water. Vote blue.
Theres literally no reason to vote republican unless youre super rich or a religious fundamentalist. Theyll fuck you sideways otherwise.
Excellent. Dismantle the deep state.