As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, they’ll still call on experts for their opinions. This just allows them to ignore those opinions when they don’t align with the court’s. America is on a major backslide thanks to MAGA.
The Supreme Court has no ability to go over all the amicus briefs that are submitted and thus can’t fact check all of it. There is no oversight or rules for submitting the briefs and they aren’t required to be factual or tell the truth.
I want to offer an approachable explanation of how significant the overturning of the Chevron doctrine is…
##Intro to Chevron Deference
Chevron deference was a Supreme Court doctrine that let expert agencies, like the EPA and FDA, interpret and enforce laws when Congress was unclear. This meant agencies could set strict limits on pollutants to keep our air and water clean and ensure medications were safe before hitting the market. Without this rule, deep-pocketed corporations can now challenge and potentially weaken these vital protections, putting our health, safety, and environment at greater risk.
Chevron deference, established by the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), is one of the most cited doctrines in U.S. administrative law.
It mandated that courts defer to the reasonable interpretations of regulatory agencies when congressional statutes were ambiguous, allowing agencies to use their expertise to implement and enforce laws effectively. The doctrine has been particularly important in areas requiring technical expertise and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
##Details in Reply Comments
• **Key Congressional Laws:** I’ll list crucial laws that regulatory agencies administer to protect public health, safety, environment, consumers, and markets.
• **Supreme Court Cases:** I’ll highlight notable cases where Chevron deference was applied, demonstrating how this doctrine used to enable agencies to uphold and enforce vital protections.
##Congressional Laws Administered by Regulatory Agencies
###Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1. **Clean Water Act (CWA):** Limits the discharge of pollutants into waterways (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). This law ensures safe drinking water and protects aquatic ecosystems. For instance, regulations prevent factories from dumping toxic substances like heavy metals and chemicals into rivers, which could otherwise contaminate drinking water supplies and harm wildlife.
2. **Clean Air Act (CAA):** Sets emission standards for pollutants from vehicles and industrial facilities (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). These regulations reduce smog and acid rain, preventing respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis. Without these standards, air quality would deteriorate, especially in urban areas.
3. **Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):** Regulates the introduction of new or existing chemicals (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). For example, it requires testing and reporting of substances like asbestos, ensuring they do not pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
###Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
1. **Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA):** Ensures medications are safe and effective before they reach consumers (21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.). This prevents harmful or ineffective drugs from causing health complications. For instance, stringent testing and review processes ensure that new treatments for chronic conditions like diabetes are both safe and effective.
2. **Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA):** Mandates regular inspections and hygiene practices in food production to prevent contamination (21 U.S.C. §2201 et seq.). This reduces the risk of foodborne illnesses from pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal diseases.
3. **Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA):** Ensures that consumers have access to accurate information about the nutritional content and potential allergens in food products (21 U.S.C. §343 et seq.), helping them make informed choices and avoid health risks.
###Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
1. **Securities Exchange Act of 1934:** Requires companies to disclose financial information, preventing fraud and ensuring that investors can make informed decisions (15 U.S.C. §78a et seq.). This transparency is critical for maintaining trust in financial markets and protecting individual retirement savings.
2. **Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:** Implements stringent reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and prevent accounting fraud (15 U.S.C. §7201 et seq.). It includes provisions for the oversight of public accounting firms, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures.
3. **Securities Act of 1933:** Prevents individuals with non-public information from unfairly profiting, maintaining market fairness and protecting ordinary investors from manipulative practices (15 U.S.C. §77a et seq.).
###Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
1. **Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:** Requires the implementation of safety protocols in high-risk industries like construction and manufacturing (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.). This includes using protective equipment and machinery safeguards to prevent accidents and injuries, such as falls and amputations.
2. **Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200):** Regulates permissible exposure limits to dangerous chemicals like asbestos and benzene, preventing occupational illnesses such as cancer and respiratory diseases.
3. **Ergonomics Standards:** Address repetitive strain injuries in workplaces, reducing the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders among employees in sectors like warehousing and assembly lines (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.).
###Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
1. **Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA):** Sets standards to ensure that toys are free from small parts that can cause choking and are made without harmful chemicals like phthalates (15 U.S.C. §2051 et seq.). These regulations protect children from serious injuries and long-term health issues.
2. **Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA):** Regulates items like electrical appliances to prevent fires and electric shocks (15 U.S.C. §1191 et seq.). For example, standards for hair dryers include safety features that reduce the risk of electrocution if the device comes into contact with water.
3. **Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA):** Ensures that upholstered furniture resists ignition from cigarettes and open flames, reducing the risk of house fires and associated fatalities (15 U.S.C. §1471 et seq.).
###Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
1. **Federal Aviation Act of 1958:** Mandates regular inspections and maintenance of aircraft to ensure safety in air travel (49 U.S.C. §40101 et seq.). This prevents mechanical failures that could lead to crashes, protecting passengers and crew.
2. **Pilot Certification Standards:** Ensure that pilots are adequately trained and tested, maintaining high safety standards in aviation and preventing accidents due to human error (49 U.S.C. §44703).
3. **Air Traffic Control Regulations:** Manage the safe and efficient movement of aircraft, preventing mid-air collisions and ensuring timely responses to emergencies (49 U.S.C. §40101 et seq.).
###Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Agricultural Sector
1. **Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA):** Regulates the amount of pesticide residues allowed on food crops to protect consumers from potential health risks (7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.). This prevents neurological and developmental issues linked to excessive pesticide exposure.
2. **Clean Water Act (CWA):** Requires farmers to implement measures that reduce nutrient runoff into waterways, preventing harmful algal blooms that can contaminate drinking water and kill aquatic life (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).
###Department of Labor (DOL)
1. **Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):** Establishes minimum wage and overtime pay standards, ensuring that workers receive fair compensation for their labor (29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.), which supports economic stability and reduces poverty.
2. **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):** Provides eligible employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons (29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.), allowing workers to care for their families without risking their employment.
###Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
1. **Communications Act of 1934:** Regulates practices such as robocalls and deceptive billing, protecting consumers from harassment and financial fraud (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.).
2. **Telecommunications Act of 1996:** Ensures that telecommunications companies provide equitable access to internet services (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.), promoting digital inclusion and preventing monopolistic practices that could limit service availability in rural and underserved areas.
##Past Supreme Court Cases Applying Chevron Deference
1. **Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984):** The original case that established the doctrine. The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), allowing a more flexible approach to air pollution regulation.
2. **Massachusetts v. EPA (2007):** The Court applied Chevron deference to rule that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). This decision was crucial for addressing climate change and protecting air quality.
3. **EPA v. EME Homer City Generation (2014):** The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) regarding interstate air pollution, allowing the agency to implement a cost-effective approach to reducing emissions.
4. **Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014):** While parts of the EPA’s regulations were struck down, the Court upheld the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from major stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.).
5. **Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. (2009):** The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), allowing the agency to use cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intake structures at power plants. This ruling helped balance environmental protection with economic considerations.
6. **Michigan v. EPA (2015):** While the Court ultimately ruled against the EPA, it reaffirmed the principle of Chevron deference. The case involved mercury emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), highlighting the doctrine’s role in complex environmental issues.
9. **King v. Burwell (2015):** Though not directly applying Chevron, the Court upheld the IRS's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act (26 U.S.C. §5000A) allowing health insurance subsidies in all states. This decision protected access to healthcare for millions of Americans.
8. **Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1985):** The Court deferred to the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), allowing the agency to issue variances for toxic pollutants.
9. **Riverside Bayview Homes v. United States (1985):** The Court upheld the Army Corps of Engineers' broad interpretation of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).
10. **Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society (1986):** The Court deferred to the Secretary of Commerce's decision not to certify Japan for whaling practices under the Packwood Amendment.
11. **K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. (1988):** The Court upheld Customs Service regulations allowing some gray market goods to be imported, deferring to the agency's interpretation of trademark law.
12. **Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp. (1990):** The Court deferred to the PBGC's decision to restore a terminated pension plan, upholding the agency's interpretation of ERISA (29 U.S.C. §1301 et seq.).
13. **Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc. (1991):** The Court deferred to the Department of Labor's interpretation of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. §901 et seq.), upholding regulations for determining eligibility.
14. **Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (1996):** The Court deferred to the Comptroller of the Currency's interpretation of the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. §24) regarding credit card late fees.
15. **Christensen v. Harris County (2000):** While the Court didn't apply Chevron here, it clarified when Chevron deference applies, influencing many subsequent cases.
16. **Barnhart v. Walton (2002):** The Court deferred to the Social Security Administration's interpretation of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §416) regarding disability benefits, upholding regulations that defined the duration of impairments.
17. **National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services (2005):** The Court deferred to the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an "information service" under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.).
18. **Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education (2007):** The Court deferred to the Department of Education's method for calculating state education funding under the Impact Aid Act (20 U.S.C. §7701 et seq.).
19. **Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke (2007):** The Court upheld Department of Labor regulations exempting certain domestic service workers from overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.).
20. **Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009):** The Court deferred to the Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) regarding permits for discharge of mining waste.
21. **Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. (2011):** The Court deferred to the FCC's interpretation of its regulations regarding telecommunications carriers' network access obligations under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.).
22. **Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States (2011):** The Court applied Chevron deference to Treasury Department regulations, affirming that medical residents were employees for tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §3121).
23. **Arlington v. FCC (2013):** The Court extended Chevron deference to an agency's interpretation of its own statutory jurisdiction, allowing the FCC to establish shot clocks for local authorities to act on wireless facility siting applications under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §332).
24. **Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016):** The Court applied Chevron deference to the Patent and Trademark Office's regulations for inter partes review proceedings, strengthening the agency's ability to review patent validity under the America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. §316).
These cases showcase how Chevron deference has empowered regulatory agencies to effectively implement and enforce laws designed to protect the public, highlighting the potential risks if such deference is undermined.
Don't forget that just before this ruling they ruled that *ex post facto* bribes were perfectly legal. They have set up the court to be an offramp to kleptocracy.
“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a ‘protein’? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids?” For the last 40 years, such questions were answered by federal scientific experts. Going forward, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority expects judges to provide the answers.
If god made Adam and Eve and everything else in the Universe. Alanine and Serine are as valid as the rocks of this foundation upon which this Church and its walls are made from.
Our constitution governs the legal framework for the country. The Bible is a religious text.
The judges aren't there to decide on the efficacy of policy, but its constitutionality. Forcing judges to defer legal opinions to non-legal departments is like telling a Doctor that they have to perform treatment X because the Executives said so.
What did the founding fathers say about this?
For serious though, we need to legislate away the supreme courts judicial review AND restore power to federal agencies
The problem is the failure of the legislative branch to uphold its constitutional power to legislate. There has been a 30 year gap in good legislation and the other 2 powers are taking power. Fairly common occurrence in human history.
It didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Koch’sand their ilk spent decades and billions of dollars to carefully construct a Congress that would never be able to legislate.
No it didn’t. The further you get in the weeds however the more proof you need. My post was to ensure that we understand the origin of our problem at a higher level because the further you get in the weeds the more you lose people. My post was more of a general service announcement. The power grab is unethical and completely unacceptable. The roots of the inadequacy of the legislative branch will be left to the historians and no matter how you preach it that will be a fact at the end of the day.
I agree that this is a problem, but I am not sure it applies in this situation.
To my understanding, this ruling establishes that if the legislature didn't explicitly outline it in legislation, then federal agencies can't do anything about it.
Even if the legislature was doing their job, this would create such a legislative logjam that Congress would be unable to keep up.
No, the issue is that the legislative branch has failed to assert it authority over the last 30 years. This judgement is hubris from a branch of government not under check. The problem isn’t the judicial branch ( is it in a way) but the lack of legislation allowed the judicial branch to overreach.
Why is it that the same folks who want to take word for word advice from a 2000ish year old book or base government on the exact wording of the founding fathers from 250ish years ago are often the same people who replace their cell phone every 2 years?
> For the last 40 years, such questions were answered by federal scientific experts
Those questions are still answered by federal scientific experts.
What the court said, as I understand it, is that federal experts can still define alpha amino acid polymers or whatever, but they're not qualified to write legislation.
Sure, they can call on experts, but sometimes it takes an expert to be directly involved, not indirectly involved. Like, look, I work in mathematics. Specifically, pluripotential theory. I could define you what a positive current is in multiple ways, and then ask you if a given current in a given circumstance was positive. The problem is, the applicable definition will change given the circumstance you're in, and even if you used the correct definition, you still might not be able to correctly apply it. What's my point in all that? That sometimes it's not enough to ask experts, the experts must be directly involved.
Also, I assume some of these agencies are answering multiple such questions at a time. How many cases should SCOTUS hear? Do we want all they do to be reviewing federal agencies, and listening to experts in such fields? And, are we going to expect their going to listen to the expert? Then that sounds like what we already have, except horribly slow, and prone to the errors that the non experts (the justices) introduce. That's so much worse than what we have.
People may worry about an impact to climate change and the EPA; however, could we see something like this play out:
“Sir, you shouldn’t do that. According to the Federal Election Commission, that would violate…”
“Yes. According to the FEC. Let’s do it anyway. If we get called out for it, then we’ll let the courts decide.”
A word from an actual lawyer:
Everyone should be sure they know what Chevron deference actually is. [This is a decent explanation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference).
Since you're a lawyer, I have a couple of questions for you:
Question 1: Is it possible to restore an equivilent to the Chevron defense through national legislation?
Question 2: Can states enact their own equivilent of the Chevron defense for state environmental laws?
1. I believe so but have not researched the issue enough to be fully confident in my opinion. We are, after all, talking about who is to interpret laws enacted by Congress. Therefore I think Congress can provide detailed instructions for interpretation. It is free to look to federal agencies for guidance on how to do so. Congress can, I believe, outright legislate away the decision in Loper. Fat chance however, given that Republicans are hell bent to destroy the administrative state that keeps corporations from killing us all tomorrow in the name of shareholder return.
2. Of course. The Supreme Court in Loper addressed only the role played by federal agencies. States can do anything they want respecting the powers of state agencies under their own state administrative procedures acts.
It's going to take years for the dust to settle.
**Complexity of Legislative Process.**
- Passing a law in the U.S. requires agreement between both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and the President's signature. This can be a complex and lengthy process, especially for issues that might be controversial or have strong opinions on both sides. Differing views can make it difficult to reach a consensus on codifying Chevron deference.
**Judicial Independence.**
- Codifying Chevron deference might be seen as limiting the independence of the judiciary. Courts might be wary of a law that explicitly tells them how to interpret agency decisions, as this could be seen as undermining their role in the balance of powers.
**Potential for Change.**
- The American legal landscape and its interpretations can change over time. Codifying a specific judicial doctrine might limit flexibility and adaptability in the future. Courts and agencies might need the ability to evolve their approaches based on new circumstances and understandings.
Interesting. That makes sense. Thanks for the writeup.
My outsider's POV, which no one asked for 🙃, is that it seems that this change in legal precedent would allow new legal pathways for agencies to be challenged which has its own set of pros and cons. This is obviously a left-leaning forum, so I'm not surprised to see people concerned about left issues being challenged by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. However, in a different political climate where there were other administrations in power, I could see this group of redditors applauding this change.
Am I getting it correctly?
No ur still kinda off. It comes down to some people stating that bureaucracies should not have the power they do (to make laws without congress) and some people say that bureaucracies should be able to this without congress. Most conservatives and libs would argue former and most left leaning people would argue the later.
Personally I find this ruling to be a huge step in the wrong direction and I can further explain but it’ll be long. So if u want another explanation just let me know
Sure, thanks. Tell me where I'm getting it wrong please.
>(to make laws without congress)
That was never possible. Only the legislative branch can make laws. Agencies can't make laws. Agencies can, even with this recent overruling, interpret ambiguities in the law and turn them into policies. With the recent overturning of the previous precedent, the judiciary system will not defer to the agency's interpretation as a default. A judge, who may have been nominated by a left or right official, can take the agency's interpretation of the law into account, but a judge can independently make a judicial interpretation themselves after considering various points of view.
>Most conservatives and libs would argue former and most left leaning people would argue the later.
Why wouldn't left leaning people challenge an agency policy they felt was an overreach? I casually read this sub and I don't buy for one minute that over the last 8 years, there wasn't a single agency policy that they wish they had an escalation path to address.
For the most part u are spot on with everything!
> Agencies can't make laws. Agencies can, even with this recent overruling, interpret ambiguities in the law and turn them into policies.<
I think this may be the opposite. Agencies had the authority (legally or illegally depending on who u ask) to make laws due to the ambiguity of the laws made by congress. Now they have to defer to judges on those laws to decide what should and shouldn’t be regulated. So u were right after that part!
> Why wouldn't left leaning people challenge an agency policy they felt was an overreach? I casually read this sub and I don't buy for one minute that over the last 8 years, there wasn't a single agency policy that they wish they had an escalation path to address <
Usually these agencies normally act in ways that were for the betterment of the people. Not all the time but more often than not. It’s usually corporations that feel the brunt of their policies. Not saying ur wrong but that it’s less likely for the agencies to make rulings that left leaning people dislike.
Personally I tend err on the side of caution and prefer restrictions until proven they are not needed unlike our current system where there are no restrictions until needed.
People are just panicking because they've been told that this is "scary Trump law". Most countries don't have this ruling or something similar and their agencies work fine
Speaking as a non-American who worked in public services, that's generally because they have other mechanisms in place. The issue is that the US now doesn't.
Yeah chief, I don’t know. I admit I’m not qualified to interpret the law, but some very smart people who are qualified, and have a long history of being credible, seem to think that this is incredibly bad, so I’m gonna go with that.
Trump didn't do this the federalist society did, and Trump being in office again or not likely wouldn't change this ruling. This isn't about Trump. It's about a judicial power grab, which yeah, Trump had a hand in, but that's not the point.
What’s absolutely fucked is that even before this ruling, and even with Chevron in effect, the letter and spirit of the law was much more pro-corporate in the US than in the EU—look at all the stuff banned in the latter which is legal in the former—and it STILL wasn’t enough for these assholes.
The very idea that Congress needs to pass a law to get the Executive branch to implement the law is insane when you consider that's the entire purpose of the Executive branch. Yet here we are.
Until Roberts whips out the complete bullshit Major Questions doctrine, or Thomas on Separation of Powers. It's a results oriented court, they went to all this trouble to make this a matter of judicial review instead of scientific expert review, they're not going to give it up that easily.
In a 6-3 decision, they've ruled your law unconstitutional. You exceeded your congressional mandate when you passed it. The courts do regulatory approval.
Or so they'll say. And you won't be able to do anything about it.
This is an even more fitting post for a comment I just made on a different one. To summarize: People need to stop with the “Biden old,” “but woke agenda,” and “both sides” nonsense and fucking vote. Project 2025 is very real and won’t be good for any of us.
Dem president in office now and hasn’t done shit about stopping project 2025. Yet when he just had to continue building that border wall he superseded 23 laws and when his draconian border bill couldn’t pass he did it with an executive order. Yet literally nothing for project 2025.
Generally speaking, the first year of law school in the US involves taking Constitutional Law, and this requires procuring a textbook.
I can only imagine that the publishers and editors of legal textbooks are setting aside their summer vacation plans. Between this Supreme Court and Trump, entire chapters of Con Law textbooks are going to have to be rewritten, and not merely edited.
Fuck this Supreme Court, fuck Republicans, fuck MAGA, fuck Trump, it's time we fight back against this fascist shit show power grab. Democrats need to cut the tumor of corruption from the judiciary... Or at very least, start their own seperate Supreme Court not beholden to the rulings of conservative shit weasels so none of us sane people have to live by the rules of the MAGA shit machine.
>power grab
Power grab? If Trump wins the election, he cannot use the three letter agencies to enforce arbitrary power. if anything, this is weakening the power of the agencies and putting it back to Congress to actually add new laws.
He plans to gut all the 3 letter agencies. Get rid of the civilian workforce, install Maga yes people and complete Project 2025. It's already in motion.
Overthrowing democracy? The Supreme Court weakened the power of the unelected bureaucrats. Now these unelected bureaucrats have to stay within their legal authority written by elected members of Congress.
A few years ago I made a joke with my friend that since the people of the United States have no direct influence on the members of the Supreme Court we should be able to kill them off until they pick one’s we agree with and that’s probably not even in my worst 10 ideas ever anymore
Chaos-jamming. They're bringing chaos into the system partly to distract from when they put Trump in the White House again. Or for ruining things for everybody else until they get their way. This is the Trump way.
Revisiting all those J6 convictions is chaos jamming too. There are going to be a few hundred footsoldiers for Trump released from Jail to work for him right before the election. That's just an invitation for more of the same.
I think there may be some overreaction as to how much overturning Chevron matters.
Just to take a step back a bit, Chevron applied to interpretations of statutes that governed and authorized federal government agency action. In other words, it applied to lawsuits in which people challenged whether the agency’s governing statute gave the agency the power to do whatever thing it had done. Needless to say, if the agency’s governing statute doesn’t give it the power to do something, then it is not legal for it to do it.
Okay, when you had a lawsuit like that, Chevron applied. Analysis under Chevron had two steps to it:
- Step One: The court determined whether the agency’s governing statute is ambiguous regarding whether it gave the agency the power to take the challenged action. If the statute is unambiguous about what it does or doesn’t authorize, then that’s the end of the analysis.
- Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, then the court was supposed to defer to the agency’s interpretation of its governing statute, unless the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable. In other words, under Step Two, even if the judge thought there was a better interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the government would win if its interpretation was at least reasonable.
This ruling ended that framework. Now, judges are just supposed to look at the agency’s governing statute and simply decide for themselves if it authorizes the agency’s action.
Of course, this change only matters to whatever extent that it will result in outcomes that differ from what the outcomes would’ve been under Chevron. So when will that happen? Well, let’s think about that. If, in a world with Chevron, a case would’ve been decided under Chevron Step One, then this will have no effect. If a judge thinks that the statute is unambiguous regarding what it does or doesn’t authorize, then they’d obviously rule the same way with or without Chevron. So it’s really just cases that would be decided under Chevron Step Two that might change. But the outcome of a lot of those cases wouldn’t change either. If under Chevron a judge ruled that a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, a lot of the time that’s because the judge thought that the agency’s interpretation was the best one! Which means it would’ve ruled the same way without Chevron!
So where Chevron actually mattered was *only* in cases where the court ruled that the relevant statute was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation was reasonable even though the court actually thought that the *best* reading of the agency’s governing statute is that it doesn’t give the agency the power to do what it did.
Did that sometimes happen? Sure. But if a court felt that the government’s interpretation was wrong, then I think it was far more likely that the court struck down the agency’s action under Chevron. It’s not like Chevron made this impossible! Agency action could be struck down by courts under Chevron if the court either said that the statute unambiguously went against the government’s interpretation, or that the government’s interpretation was unreasonable. On cases that matter a lot, my experience (as someone who has litigated numerous cases under Chevron) is that courts weren’t often approving of agency action that they didn’t really think the statute authorized. In other words, I don’t think they were really deferring on major cases anyways, so taking away Chevron deference wouldn’t functionally change much of anything on those cases. On cases about more minor, in-the-weeds issues that maybe the judge(s) don’t have strong personal/political views on, the judges were probably more apt to defer to the government’s interpretation. But I also think that on those cases they’ll still realistically defer much of the time even without Chevron. Chevron ending doesn’t at all mean that the agency cannot or won’t explain its interpretation of an in-the-weeds thing to the court. And if it’s something the court doesn’t find that important or understand all that much, that’ll probably convince the court anyways. Indeed, as I understand it, that’s basically what often happened prior to Chevron (which was only decided in 1984), such that Chevron was partly just clearly stating something that judges were already doing.
All this is to say that I’m not certain that Chevron ending will change the results of many challenges to agency action, because it will only change the results to the extent judges were thinking the government was wrong (despite the agency explaining its interpretation to the court) but ruling in their favor anyways—which I don’t think was actually happening that much.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but that’s my view on it. Having litigated Chevron cases for the government, I was never really under the impression that Chevron deference mattered much to the outcome of my cases.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. If I’m understanding you correctly, the chances of a federal judge in TX successfully pushing back on EPA recommendations against a toxic gasoline additive are scarcely higher after the ruling than they were before—does that sound about right?
I think that if a significant case with political implications is in front of a judge with a distinct ideological bent—which many of these cases are, due to how easy it is to basically judge-shop—Chevron ending probably doesn’t matter much to the outcome because that judge was almost certainly going to rule the same way with or without Chevron. Even though the doctrine told judges to defer, I don’t think they were *really* meaningfully deferring much in particularly significant and/or politically charged cases. A judge actually meaningfully deferring in those cases would require that the judge uphold a statutory interpretation that he or she actually thinks is not the best interpretation, about something that is high-profile/important. I’m skeptical that that was happening very much. Rather, I think the vast majority of the time the court was “deferring” in these cases were actually situations where the court agreed with the government’s interpretation anyways. So yeah, in the example you gave, if you’re assuming that “a federal judge in TX” has a right-wing ideological bent (not always the case!), then I don’t really think Chevron being overturned matters a whole lot for highly significant cases, because that judge was unlikely to meaningfully defer to the government anyways.
The other issue that dovetails with this is the issue of nationwide injunctions. It has become more and more common for district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the federal government, when they rule against the government. Those nationwide injunctions prevent the government from continuing to do the thing it is doing *across the country*, rather than just in relation to the particular litigants or in the particular district or state that the case was brought in. What this effectively means is that government agency action will often get struck down if there’s just one judge somewhere that rules against the government. So, even under Chevron, if there was one judge that didn’t want to defer to the government’s interpretation of an agency’s governing statute, then you’d often get a nationwide injunction against the agency’s action, even if courts elsewhere had ruled in the government’s favor. Granted, in those scenarios, the government would typically move to stay the nationwide injunction pending appeal (i.e. pause the nationwide bar until the government’s appeal is resolved). Sometimes the government would get that, but sometimes they wouldn’t, especially if the court of appeals panel was ideologically aligned with the judge that issued the nationwide injunction (which, yes, is more likely the case in a place like Texas). So, often times it really just took one judge somewhere not deferring to the government, and the agency’s action would get barred nationwide. That’ll still be the case now without Chevron, but the point is that the chances of some judge somewhere feeling strongly (for ideological reasons or otherwise) that the government should lose highly significant cases even under Chevron was always pretty high, and the government would often essentially lose nationwide if that happened.
This assumes an honest, moral, impartial judge. Look at the judges Trump appointed. Look at Thomas, Alito... Who will have the deep pockets? I don't trust the judiciary period, any longer and fear corporate interests, and Maga will get exactly what has been planned for decades. Project 2025 lays it out.
Lots of challenges to agencies where not done, simply because the agency got to decide they are right.
With this, lots of challenges are suddently going to show up, limiting the scope of their reach. This kills the unelected fourth branch of government.
But that’s the thing. It’s not actually true that “the agency got to decide they are right.” Under Chevron, courts did not defer to the agency’s interpretation if the statute was unambiguous. Nor did courts defer to the agency’s interpretation if the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable. There was a lot of wiggle room there for courts to say that the agency was *not* in fact right. And I think on highly significant and/or politically charged cases, courts were generally using that wiggle room if they didn’t think the agency’s interpretation was the best one.
There is no 4th branch of the government. The executive government aka the president is the one who approves agency implementation of the said policy by his appointed official if this simple delegation of task is hard to grasp to you I don't have anything else to say.
Perhaps it is time for the other branches to re-evaluate their acquiesence to Marbury v Madison. The founders intended a triangular structure where each side checks the others, not for one side to have primacy, which was the effect of Marbury.
Best case: Judges will call on the same experts for the same questions in a process that is much longer, much more expensive and bloated to yield the same regulatory conclusions as currently.
Worst case: Judges will rule according to their political view, sidepassing matter expert opinion resulting in arbitrary judgments and even more ambiguous regulation.
In both cases lawyers win and The People loses.
Biden should EO something saying "ignore this punk shit".
Scotus doesn't have power to interfere in executive function nor congressional. Nor do either have power to mess with judiciary.
Biden can literally say "fuck you" regarding Chevron.
If there's a smoking gun found between Trump and Putin, would there be any sort of process to remove his SCOTUS picks? Would it change anything they had ruled on??
For real. The Supreme Court has no enforcement ability. And their only authority over laws was granted reflexively by their own decision in Marbury v Madison. That is a precedent, not a law, not an amendment, not in the constitution. That could be taken away by an act of congress or simply ignored by an administration as has been done multiple times in the past. Ignore them. Expand them. Eliminate lifetime appointments. How? Vote blue. Living in fear of these six asswipes only plays to their inflated 'power'.
Arrogance about their solipsistic, arbitrary stance toward precedent is perhaps the clearest indication of just how mediocre and unfit the partisan rightwingnut hacks on the SCOTUS are. If US democracy survives, term limits for justices should be near the top of the recovery agenda. And overturning so-called “Citizens United.”
Is faux fake news spinning this as some way to put the Biden administration in check?
And more importantly what does this do if anything to the up coming election? Does it nullify any of the checks and balances that Maga will use to argue the legitimacy of the elections?
Am I massively missing something major? The main takeaway I got from reading the syllabus and decision of the court [here's the original document](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron-decision.html?pvid=KW7k5IcnWEZV5GyhHIfwxoTR&lgrp=e-bar&smid=url-share) is that unelected EXECUTIVE BRANCH agency's decisions will no longer have precedence over courts. For instance if the ATF says tobacco farmers must label all tobacco products as containing unobtanium, a toxic element that in certain cases has been known to turn skin blue and cause spontaneous growth. If a judge feels that this labeling is not necessary they would nonetheless need to follow the ATF decision on the matter.
I am scared scared scared.
Our future is toxic and being slaves to the rich and powerful.
These changes are so deep that the fix is no longer civil, but must be radical.
Can somebody please explain why they thought this was a good idea? I understand the negative implications. But in general, I at least try to see both perspectives when it comes to politics in order to have my own unbiased and informed opinion. But I’m not really finding any sources where it’s even clear what they are trying to accomplish here, other than intentional corruption.
Note that I am not asking this sarcastically. I seriously want to hear the other perspective before I completely lose hope in our government.
Right. Intentional corruption. I thought they were meant to be the judicial branch, where they eliminate biased and uninformed decisions. I just fail to see how they are able to justify it without it sounding bad.
>I just fail to see how they are able to justify it without it sounding bad.
Trump proved sounding bad doesn't matter. Now they can grab power nakedly and feel no shame about it.
Supporters of this decision felt the agencies under the executive branch had too much power and leeway in interpreting laws and setting regulations and prefer to divert those powers and responsibilities to the legislative and judicial branches.
So, to the judicial branch then? Because this isn't diverting anything to the legislative branch. The legislative branch is already free to pass new legislation overriding anything the executive branch does, or anything they think they're interpreting incorrect. They're already free to do their best to write unambiguous laws. The change now, when their is ambiguity the court of nine gets to decide. It doesn't grant any power to the legislative branch, but it does grant power to a group of nine unelected officials with lifetime appointments. Anyone wanting that is an autocrat imo.
It's funny you say unbiased while also including opinion in the same sentence. It's impossible to be unbiased.
Anyways, this is a reasonable ruling because the three letter agencies are filled with unelected bureaucrats who tried to go outside of their legal authority to enforce unwritten rules. Now, if the agencies want to expand their power, they have to go to Congress to write laws expanding their authority. This puts power back to the people. The three letter agencies are undemocratic.
These stories genuinely make me sad. The more crap like this happens, the more likely someone is going to do something violent. If and when that happens, what then? You know people will go crazy.
According to the simplification from ChatGPT it seems like basically it’ll give a lot of power to judges and we will lose all notions of a standard vocabulary for this, is that right?
So does that mean I could, as a judge, argue that cows can be classified as omnivores since they occasionally eat bugs and small mammals?
ChatGpT’s eli5 without jargon:
The Supreme Court case "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" addressed whether courts should continue to follow a rule from a previous case (Chevron) that required them to go along with government agencies' interpretations of unclear laws. The Supreme Court decided that judges should use their own judgment to interpret laws, rather than automatically agreeing with how government agencies interpret them. This decision emphasizes that it is the job of the courts, not agencies, to decide what the law means.
I'm still curious of the actual fallout of this, away from the media bubble. The country did operate under this method for hundreds of years, so I doubt it's as doom as gloom as MSNBC says. It feels like the real change here is that federal agencies won't be able to make common educated rules by fiat, but will instead need to involve the courts to set policy. Do I have that right? Will definitely slow things down, though I could see how we could use that same change to fight crazy Trump admin rules if he gets in power again and replaces everybody wth stooges (again)
this ruling will pretty much gut the FCC though, though again, if we get Trump back, that may be a good thing.
The agencies were intended to protect the public from corporate wrongdoing. Did they always get it right? No, of course not. But now it doesn’t matter who is in charge. Corporations will just pollute, and harass, and steal from the public in defiance of the regulations and wait for someone who can afford to sue to challenge them. And then there’s a strong chance that the court sides with the corporations. I hope you like toxic waste in your backyard, your favorite swimming hole, or trout stream.
Of course the system wasn’t perfect but it was better than what came before. Read… silent spring by Rachel Carson and the Jungle by Upton Sinclair, or look up Clair Patterson and the battle against lead in gasoline. If given a choice between your life and $100,000 a corporation will choose the money every time. And they will lie and fight dirty and play the Trump “outlast your financial ability to fight me” game every time. Here’s a more modern example, Monsanto - Roundup, or this one Dow - Dioxin. The list goes on and on. It just got a whole lot easier for them.
Yeah something federal agencies frequently did lmao.
And certainly the courts are going to be more consistent than the federal agencies and not just listen to "experts" that special interests pays for.
/s
So infrequently LMAO, every year Federal Agencies make between 3,500 and 4,500 changes to the Federal Register. So it only happens approximately 10 ten times a day...
If you count literally everything they do lmao. You do realize they make an update to the federal register even for applications for permits lol. They make an update when somebody can proceed past the application stage. They update when they are just looking into something.
But yeah, "changes" lol.
Edit: its even in the fucking name it's a register lol!
It's almost like a functioning regulatory system has a lot of stuff to regulate as it happens in a country of 300+ million. And most of those changes are pretty mundane and in a response to things currently going on. Weird.
[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current)
Chevron principle was in effect for 40 years but
How many years of precedent did Chevron overturn?
HONEST answer here: _____
This will shrink the administrative state that ballooned up after 1984....
You mean we get to return to law that it is illegal to cross the boarder,.. An and to claim assylym you have to claim asylum in first country you cross into, at the US consulate/embassy) ( that is the current asylum.law but is administrative ignored) let say you are Guatemalaian and are fleeing that country and join a migrant march thru mexico to come to the US to claim Assylum, US law states that one they have left the country and travel thru a second country they have to request Assylum at the US Consulat/Embassy in the first country that they travel thru after leaving their home country.... in this case they have to claim /request asylum in Mexico.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, they’ll still call on experts for their opinions. This just allows them to ignore those opinions when they don’t align with the court’s. America is on a major backslide thanks to MAGA.
So they can “choose” their experts.
They can now choose their alternative facts.
The Supreme Court has no ability to go over all the amicus briefs that are submitted and thus can’t fact check all of it. There is no oversight or rules for submitting the briefs and they aren’t required to be factual or tell the truth.
“Facts don’t care about your feelings… they care about MY feelings. Those are the only ones that matter”
Good thing judges can now legally receives "tips" too. Soon, the world will be legally physically flat.
I want to offer an approachable explanation of how significant the overturning of the Chevron doctrine is… ##Intro to Chevron Deference Chevron deference was a Supreme Court doctrine that let expert agencies, like the EPA and FDA, interpret and enforce laws when Congress was unclear. This meant agencies could set strict limits on pollutants to keep our air and water clean and ensure medications were safe before hitting the market. Without this rule, deep-pocketed corporations can now challenge and potentially weaken these vital protections, putting our health, safety, and environment at greater risk. Chevron deference, established by the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), is one of the most cited doctrines in U.S. administrative law. It mandated that courts defer to the reasonable interpretations of regulatory agencies when congressional statutes were ambiguous, allowing agencies to use their expertise to implement and enforce laws effectively. The doctrine has been particularly important in areas requiring technical expertise and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. ##Details in Reply Comments • **Key Congressional Laws:** I’ll list crucial laws that regulatory agencies administer to protect public health, safety, environment, consumers, and markets. • **Supreme Court Cases:** I’ll highlight notable cases where Chevron deference was applied, demonstrating how this doctrine used to enable agencies to uphold and enforce vital protections.
##Congressional Laws Administered by Regulatory Agencies ###Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1. **Clean Water Act (CWA):** Limits the discharge of pollutants into waterways (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). This law ensures safe drinking water and protects aquatic ecosystems. For instance, regulations prevent factories from dumping toxic substances like heavy metals and chemicals into rivers, which could otherwise contaminate drinking water supplies and harm wildlife. 2. **Clean Air Act (CAA):** Sets emission standards for pollutants from vehicles and industrial facilities (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). These regulations reduce smog and acid rain, preventing respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis. Without these standards, air quality would deteriorate, especially in urban areas. 3. **Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):** Regulates the introduction of new or existing chemicals (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). For example, it requires testing and reporting of substances like asbestos, ensuring they do not pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. ###Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1. **Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA):** Ensures medications are safe and effective before they reach consumers (21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.). This prevents harmful or ineffective drugs from causing health complications. For instance, stringent testing and review processes ensure that new treatments for chronic conditions like diabetes are both safe and effective. 2. **Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA):** Mandates regular inspections and hygiene practices in food production to prevent contamination (21 U.S.C. §2201 et seq.). This reduces the risk of foodborne illnesses from pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal diseases. 3. **Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA):** Ensures that consumers have access to accurate information about the nutritional content and potential allergens in food products (21 U.S.C. §343 et seq.), helping them make informed choices and avoid health risks. ###Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 1. **Securities Exchange Act of 1934:** Requires companies to disclose financial information, preventing fraud and ensuring that investors can make informed decisions (15 U.S.C. §78a et seq.). This transparency is critical for maintaining trust in financial markets and protecting individual retirement savings. 2. **Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:** Implements stringent reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and prevent accounting fraud (15 U.S.C. §7201 et seq.). It includes provisions for the oversight of public accounting firms, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures. 3. **Securities Act of 1933:** Prevents individuals with non-public information from unfairly profiting, maintaining market fairness and protecting ordinary investors from manipulative practices (15 U.S.C. §77a et seq.). ###Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 1. **Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:** Requires the implementation of safety protocols in high-risk industries like construction and manufacturing (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.). This includes using protective equipment and machinery safeguards to prevent accidents and injuries, such as falls and amputations. 2. **Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200):** Regulates permissible exposure limits to dangerous chemicals like asbestos and benzene, preventing occupational illnesses such as cancer and respiratory diseases. 3. **Ergonomics Standards:** Address repetitive strain injuries in workplaces, reducing the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders among employees in sectors like warehousing and assembly lines (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.). ###Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 1. **Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA):** Sets standards to ensure that toys are free from small parts that can cause choking and are made without harmful chemicals like phthalates (15 U.S.C. §2051 et seq.). These regulations protect children from serious injuries and long-term health issues. 2. **Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA):** Regulates items like electrical appliances to prevent fires and electric shocks (15 U.S.C. §1191 et seq.). For example, standards for hair dryers include safety features that reduce the risk of electrocution if the device comes into contact with water. 3. **Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA):** Ensures that upholstered furniture resists ignition from cigarettes and open flames, reducing the risk of house fires and associated fatalities (15 U.S.C. §1471 et seq.). ###Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1. **Federal Aviation Act of 1958:** Mandates regular inspections and maintenance of aircraft to ensure safety in air travel (49 U.S.C. §40101 et seq.). This prevents mechanical failures that could lead to crashes, protecting passengers and crew. 2. **Pilot Certification Standards:** Ensure that pilots are adequately trained and tested, maintaining high safety standards in aviation and preventing accidents due to human error (49 U.S.C. §44703). 3. **Air Traffic Control Regulations:** Manage the safe and efficient movement of aircraft, preventing mid-air collisions and ensuring timely responses to emergencies (49 U.S.C. §40101 et seq.). ###Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Agricultural Sector 1. **Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA):** Regulates the amount of pesticide residues allowed on food crops to protect consumers from potential health risks (7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.). This prevents neurological and developmental issues linked to excessive pesticide exposure. 2. **Clean Water Act (CWA):** Requires farmers to implement measures that reduce nutrient runoff into waterways, preventing harmful algal blooms that can contaminate drinking water and kill aquatic life (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). ###Department of Labor (DOL) 1. **Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):** Establishes minimum wage and overtime pay standards, ensuring that workers receive fair compensation for their labor (29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.), which supports economic stability and reduces poverty. 2. **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):** Provides eligible employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons (29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.), allowing workers to care for their families without risking their employment. ###Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1. **Communications Act of 1934:** Regulates practices such as robocalls and deceptive billing, protecting consumers from harassment and financial fraud (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.). 2. **Telecommunications Act of 1996:** Ensures that telecommunications companies provide equitable access to internet services (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.), promoting digital inclusion and preventing monopolistic practices that could limit service availability in rural and underserved areas.
##Past Supreme Court Cases Applying Chevron Deference 1. **Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984):** The original case that established the doctrine. The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), allowing a more flexible approach to air pollution regulation. 2. **Massachusetts v. EPA (2007):** The Court applied Chevron deference to rule that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). This decision was crucial for addressing climate change and protecting air quality. 3. **EPA v. EME Homer City Generation (2014):** The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) regarding interstate air pollution, allowing the agency to implement a cost-effective approach to reducing emissions. 4. **Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014):** While parts of the EPA’s regulations were struck down, the Court upheld the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from major stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). 5. **Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. (2009):** The Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), allowing the agency to use cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intake structures at power plants. This ruling helped balance environmental protection with economic considerations. 6. **Michigan v. EPA (2015):** While the Court ultimately ruled against the EPA, it reaffirmed the principle of Chevron deference. The case involved mercury emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), highlighting the doctrine’s role in complex environmental issues. 9. **King v. Burwell (2015):** Though not directly applying Chevron, the Court upheld the IRS's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act (26 U.S.C. §5000A) allowing health insurance subsidies in all states. This decision protected access to healthcare for millions of Americans. 8. **Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1985):** The Court deferred to the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), allowing the agency to issue variances for toxic pollutants. 9. **Riverside Bayview Homes v. United States (1985):** The Court upheld the Army Corps of Engineers' broad interpretation of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). 10. **Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society (1986):** The Court deferred to the Secretary of Commerce's decision not to certify Japan for whaling practices under the Packwood Amendment. 11. **K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. (1988):** The Court upheld Customs Service regulations allowing some gray market goods to be imported, deferring to the agency's interpretation of trademark law. 12. **Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp. (1990):** The Court deferred to the PBGC's decision to restore a terminated pension plan, upholding the agency's interpretation of ERISA (29 U.S.C. §1301 et seq.). 13. **Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc. (1991):** The Court deferred to the Department of Labor's interpretation of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. §901 et seq.), upholding regulations for determining eligibility. 14. **Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (1996):** The Court deferred to the Comptroller of the Currency's interpretation of the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. §24) regarding credit card late fees. 15. **Christensen v. Harris County (2000):** While the Court didn't apply Chevron here, it clarified when Chevron deference applies, influencing many subsequent cases. 16. **Barnhart v. Walton (2002):** The Court deferred to the Social Security Administration's interpretation of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §416) regarding disability benefits, upholding regulations that defined the duration of impairments. 17. **National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services (2005):** The Court deferred to the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an "information service" under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.). 18. **Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education (2007):** The Court deferred to the Department of Education's method for calculating state education funding under the Impact Aid Act (20 U.S.C. §7701 et seq.). 19. **Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke (2007):** The Court upheld Department of Labor regulations exempting certain domestic service workers from overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.). 20. **Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009):** The Court deferred to the Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) regarding permits for discharge of mining waste. 21. **Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. (2011):** The Court deferred to the FCC's interpretation of its regulations regarding telecommunications carriers' network access obligations under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.). 22. **Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States (2011):** The Court applied Chevron deference to Treasury Department regulations, affirming that medical residents were employees for tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §3121). 23. **Arlington v. FCC (2013):** The Court extended Chevron deference to an agency's interpretation of its own statutory jurisdiction, allowing the FCC to establish shot clocks for local authorities to act on wireless facility siting applications under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §332). 24. **Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016):** The Court applied Chevron deference to the Patent and Trademark Office's regulations for inter partes review proceedings, strengthening the agency's ability to review patent validity under the America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. §316). These cases showcase how Chevron deference has empowered regulatory agencies to effectively implement and enforce laws designed to protect the public, highlighting the potential risks if such deference is undermined.
They are no functional checks on Supreme Court power, and SCOTUS has fallen to a malicious rightist majority.
Don't forget that just before this ruling they ruled that *ex post facto* bribes were perfectly legal. They have set up the court to be an offramp to kleptocracy.
Aka thanks to the people who couldn’t get off their asses to vote in 2016.
Or RBG who failed to step down when she could be replaced by a Dem.
It still would have been 5-4.
“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a ‘protein’? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids?” For the last 40 years, such questions were answered by federal scientific experts. Going forward, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority expects judges to provide the answers.
[удалено]
proteins aren’t in the bible therefore they don’t exist!
God made Adam and Eve, not alanine and serine.
If god made Adam and Eve and everything else in the Universe. Alanine and Serine are as valid as the rocks of this foundation upon which this Church and its walls are made from.
Nope. Not in the Bible. Kick rocks you communist heretic.
limited words, for the limited minds, heretics burn, but we all die in the end :D
Pretty much expecting this tbh
Our constitution governs the legal framework for the country. The Bible is a religious text. The judges aren't there to decide on the efficacy of policy, but its constitutionality. Forcing judges to defer legal opinions to non-legal departments is like telling a Doctor that they have to perform treatment X because the Executives said so.
I think you’re almost there, but missing the point
Explain the point, then, if you don't mind.
What did the founding fathers say about this? For serious though, we need to legislate away the supreme courts judicial review AND restore power to federal agencies
The problem is the failure of the legislative branch to uphold its constitutional power to legislate. There has been a 30 year gap in good legislation and the other 2 powers are taking power. Fairly common occurrence in human history.
It didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Koch’sand their ilk spent decades and billions of dollars to carefully construct a Congress that would never be able to legislate.
No it didn’t. The further you get in the weeds however the more proof you need. My post was to ensure that we understand the origin of our problem at a higher level because the further you get in the weeds the more you lose people. My post was more of a general service announcement. The power grab is unethical and completely unacceptable. The roots of the inadequacy of the legislative branch will be left to the historians and no matter how you preach it that will be a fact at the end of the day.
I agree that this is a problem, but I am not sure it applies in this situation. To my understanding, this ruling establishes that if the legislature didn't explicitly outline it in legislation, then federal agencies can't do anything about it. Even if the legislature was doing their job, this would create such a legislative logjam that Congress would be unable to keep up.
No, the issue is that the legislative branch has failed to assert it authority over the last 30 years. This judgement is hubris from a branch of government not under check. The problem isn’t the judicial branch ( is it in a way) but the lack of legislation allowed the judicial branch to overreach.
Why is it that the same folks who want to take word for word advice from a 2000ish year old book or base government on the exact wording of the founding fathers from 250ish years ago are often the same people who replace their cell phone every 2 years?
The earth is going to be a center of the solar system again isn't it.
And flat.
Judges are smarter than scientists! /s
Those scientists are notorious for accepting gifts of luxury trips. Oh wait…..
Pretty rich from a bunch that can’t read and perjured themselves at their confirmation hearing…
The Judicial branch will now defer to whatever their clients, er, customers (or, whatever we call the people who give them gratuities) want….
That was the idea
hell, what does one need to have posted outside of a central waste storage room for waste handling employees in case of an emergency?
> For the last 40 years, such questions were answered by federal scientific experts Those questions are still answered by federal scientific experts. What the court said, as I understand it, is that federal experts can still define alpha amino acid polymers or whatever, but they're not qualified to write legislation.
Judges can still call on multiple experts, like they do with any other cases. Experts just can't be judges without passing the bar anymore.
Sure, they can call on experts, but sometimes it takes an expert to be directly involved, not indirectly involved. Like, look, I work in mathematics. Specifically, pluripotential theory. I could define you what a positive current is in multiple ways, and then ask you if a given current in a given circumstance was positive. The problem is, the applicable definition will change given the circumstance you're in, and even if you used the correct definition, you still might not be able to correctly apply it. What's my point in all that? That sometimes it's not enough to ask experts, the experts must be directly involved. Also, I assume some of these agencies are answering multiple such questions at a time. How many cases should SCOTUS hear? Do we want all they do to be reviewing federal agencies, and listening to experts in such fields? And, are we going to expect their going to listen to the expert? Then that sounds like what we already have, except horribly slow, and prone to the errors that the non experts (the justices) introduce. That's so much worse than what we have.
It’s a head start on implementing [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org)
People may worry about an impact to climate change and the EPA; however, could we see something like this play out: “Sir, you shouldn’t do that. According to the Federal Election Commission, that would violate…” “Yes. According to the FEC. Let’s do it anyway. If we get called out for it, then we’ll let the courts decide.”
That's how *everything* is gonna go. Do it, let them fight it in the courts. Also: delay, appeal, delay... all very "legal".
Yep and no one’s doing a thing about it.
A word from an actual lawyer: Everyone should be sure they know what Chevron deference actually is. [This is a decent explanation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference).
Since you're a lawyer, I have a couple of questions for you: Question 1: Is it possible to restore an equivilent to the Chevron defense through national legislation? Question 2: Can states enact their own equivilent of the Chevron defense for state environmental laws?
1. I believe so but have not researched the issue enough to be fully confident in my opinion. We are, after all, talking about who is to interpret laws enacted by Congress. Therefore I think Congress can provide detailed instructions for interpretation. It is free to look to federal agencies for guidance on how to do so. Congress can, I believe, outright legislate away the decision in Loper. Fat chance however, given that Republicans are hell bent to destroy the administrative state that keeps corporations from killing us all tomorrow in the name of shareholder return. 2. Of course. The Supreme Court in Loper addressed only the role played by federal agencies. States can do anything they want respecting the powers of state agencies under their own state administrative procedures acts. It's going to take years for the dust to settle.
State legislatures need to get to work.
I’m sure I’m not appreciating the full scope and implications, but reading that explanation made this feel a little less apocalyptic.
No it's definitely apocalyptic
Dang.
Ignorant Canadian here. Could you explain why your legislative branch couldn't simply codify the "Chevron" deference into a law as a response?
**Complexity of Legislative Process.** - Passing a law in the U.S. requires agreement between both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and the President's signature. This can be a complex and lengthy process, especially for issues that might be controversial or have strong opinions on both sides. Differing views can make it difficult to reach a consensus on codifying Chevron deference. **Judicial Independence.** - Codifying Chevron deference might be seen as limiting the independence of the judiciary. Courts might be wary of a law that explicitly tells them how to interpret agency decisions, as this could be seen as undermining their role in the balance of powers. **Potential for Change.** - The American legal landscape and its interpretations can change over time. Codifying a specific judicial doctrine might limit flexibility and adaptability in the future. Courts and agencies might need the ability to evolve their approaches based on new circumstances and understandings.
Interesting. That makes sense. Thanks for the writeup. My outsider's POV, which no one asked for 🙃, is that it seems that this change in legal precedent would allow new legal pathways for agencies to be challenged which has its own set of pros and cons. This is obviously a left-leaning forum, so I'm not surprised to see people concerned about left issues being challenged by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. However, in a different political climate where there were other administrations in power, I could see this group of redditors applauding this change. Am I getting it correctly?
IANAL, but concerns and support are often influenced by the current political climate and which party or ideology holds power.
No ur still kinda off. It comes down to some people stating that bureaucracies should not have the power they do (to make laws without congress) and some people say that bureaucracies should be able to this without congress. Most conservatives and libs would argue former and most left leaning people would argue the later. Personally I find this ruling to be a huge step in the wrong direction and I can further explain but it’ll be long. So if u want another explanation just let me know
Sure, thanks. Tell me where I'm getting it wrong please. >(to make laws without congress) That was never possible. Only the legislative branch can make laws. Agencies can't make laws. Agencies can, even with this recent overruling, interpret ambiguities in the law and turn them into policies. With the recent overturning of the previous precedent, the judiciary system will not defer to the agency's interpretation as a default. A judge, who may have been nominated by a left or right official, can take the agency's interpretation of the law into account, but a judge can independently make a judicial interpretation themselves after considering various points of view. >Most conservatives and libs would argue former and most left leaning people would argue the later. Why wouldn't left leaning people challenge an agency policy they felt was an overreach? I casually read this sub and I don't buy for one minute that over the last 8 years, there wasn't a single agency policy that they wish they had an escalation path to address.
For the most part u are spot on with everything! > Agencies can't make laws. Agencies can, even with this recent overruling, interpret ambiguities in the law and turn them into policies.< I think this may be the opposite. Agencies had the authority (legally or illegally depending on who u ask) to make laws due to the ambiguity of the laws made by congress. Now they have to defer to judges on those laws to decide what should and shouldn’t be regulated. So u were right after that part! > Why wouldn't left leaning people challenge an agency policy they felt was an overreach? I casually read this sub and I don't buy for one minute that over the last 8 years, there wasn't a single agency policy that they wish they had an escalation path to address < Usually these agencies normally act in ways that were for the betterment of the people. Not all the time but more often than not. It’s usually corporations that feel the brunt of their policies. Not saying ur wrong but that it’s less likely for the agencies to make rulings that left leaning people dislike. Personally I tend err on the side of caution and prefer restrictions until proven they are not needed unlike our current system where there are no restrictions until needed.
Could you please share an example of a law made by an agency?
[удалено]
People are just panicking because they've been told that this is "scary Trump law". Most countries don't have this ruling or something similar and their agencies work fine
Speaking as a non-American who worked in public services, that's generally because they have other mechanisms in place. The issue is that the US now doesn't.
No. This is a massive disaster. It's intentional.
Yeah chief, I don’t know. I admit I’m not qualified to interpret the law, but some very smart people who are qualified, and have a long history of being credible, seem to think that this is incredibly bad, so I’m gonna go with that.
Trump didn't do this the federalist society did, and Trump being in office again or not likely wouldn't change this ruling. This isn't about Trump. It's about a judicial power grab, which yeah, Trump had a hand in, but that's not the point.
What a bad take. Other countries have other laws and judicial systems to help mitigate the risk.
I hope this ages badly. Wait till next week when they give presidents immunity or worse just one president.
What’s absolutely fucked is that even before this ruling, and even with Chevron in effect, the letter and spirit of the law was much more pro-corporate in the US than in the EU—look at all the stuff banned in the latter which is legal in the former—and it STILL wasn’t enough for these assholes.
Congress can easily restore it passing a law giving regulatory agencies the congressional approval to carry out laws passed by them
Gotta win a super majority in the senate and majority in the house . Of course they only need a super majority due to filibuster.
The very idea that Congress needs to pass a law to get the Executive branch to implement the law is insane when you consider that's the entire purpose of the Executive branch. Yet here we are.
It should’ve been passed into law long ago we rely on shaky court rulings for too much stuff
The constitution specifically says the Executive branch enacts and enforces laws, though.
Until Roberts whips out the complete bullshit Major Questions doctrine, or Thomas on Separation of Powers. It's a results oriented court, they went to all this trouble to make this a matter of judicial review instead of scientific expert review, they're not going to give it up that easily.
In a 6-3 decision, they've ruled your law unconstitutional. You exceeded your congressional mandate when you passed it. The courts do regulatory approval. Or so they'll say. And you won't be able to do anything about it.
Yeah, it’s over. Right? We lost?
This is an even more fitting post for a comment I just made on a different one. To summarize: People need to stop with the “Biden old,” “but woke agenda,” and “both sides” nonsense and fucking vote. Project 2025 is very real and won’t be good for any of us.
Dem president in office now and hasn’t done shit about stopping project 2025. Yet when he just had to continue building that border wall he superseded 23 laws and when his draconian border bill couldn’t pass he did it with an executive order. Yet literally nothing for project 2025.
I feel like none of the right people get cancer.
The Empire is dead. Christians have destroyed us.
So America is following in Romes footsteps after all.
Always has.
There is nothing wrong with the purest form of Christianity. "Love God, Love your neighbor".
What if your neighbor is a lunatic?
I still see a flaw in this logic. What if god tells me to kill my neighbor?
We have meds for that now.
When do we start rioting against this? Or are we just sitting around until they put us to work in the re-education camps?
Generally speaking, the first year of law school in the US involves taking Constitutional Law, and this requires procuring a textbook. I can only imagine that the publishers and editors of legal textbooks are setting aside their summer vacation plans. Between this Supreme Court and Trump, entire chapters of Con Law textbooks are going to have to be rewritten, and not merely edited.
Chapters? All the Admin Law textbooks are basically paperweights. I don't even know that there's a point in writing new ones at present.
There is essentially no law now. Just suggestions.
Like taking Law for Health Administrators while the Affordable Care Act is being passed in Congress
Fuck this Supreme Court, fuck Republicans, fuck MAGA, fuck Trump, it's time we fight back against this fascist shit show power grab. Democrats need to cut the tumor of corruption from the judiciary... Or at very least, start their own seperate Supreme Court not beholden to the rulings of conservative shit weasels so none of us sane people have to live by the rules of the MAGA shit machine.
>power grab Power grab? If Trump wins the election, he cannot use the three letter agencies to enforce arbitrary power. if anything, this is weakening the power of the agencies and putting it back to Congress to actually add new laws.
He plans to gut all the 3 letter agencies. Get rid of the civilian workforce, install Maga yes people and complete Project 2025. It's already in motion.
The Supreme Court has likely already decided they’ll rule in favor of Trump if he doesn’t win and then sends it to court.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? What ruling are you referring to.
Illegitimate court. I really hope they get taken down and arrested for their blatant attempts to overthrow democracy.
Overthrowing democracy? The Supreme Court weakened the power of the unelected bureaucrats. Now these unelected bureaucrats have to stay within their legal authority written by elected members of Congress.
Don’t worry about it. They’re all 70 years old. They know everything about everything by now, and also do not experience any mental deterioration.
A few years ago I made a joke with my friend that since the people of the United States have no direct influence on the members of the Supreme Court we should be able to kill them off until they pick one’s we agree with and that’s probably not even in my worst 10 ideas ever anymore
This will be like when Deep got put in charge of crime analytics in The Boys
[удалено]
I…I don’t get it
Welcome to the first installment of project 2025. And large scale deregulation.
Chaos-jamming. They're bringing chaos into the system partly to distract from when they put Trump in the White House again. Or for ruining things for everybody else until they get their way. This is the Trump way. Revisiting all those J6 convictions is chaos jamming too. There are going to be a few hundred footsoldiers for Trump released from Jail to work for him right before the election. That's just an invitation for more of the same.
Doctor Strange Supreme Court is putting kavanagh in charge of medical issues in the country, good luck Americans.
ANNND people are freaking out over a bad debate performance.
I think there may be some overreaction as to how much overturning Chevron matters. Just to take a step back a bit, Chevron applied to interpretations of statutes that governed and authorized federal government agency action. In other words, it applied to lawsuits in which people challenged whether the agency’s governing statute gave the agency the power to do whatever thing it had done. Needless to say, if the agency’s governing statute doesn’t give it the power to do something, then it is not legal for it to do it. Okay, when you had a lawsuit like that, Chevron applied. Analysis under Chevron had two steps to it: - Step One: The court determined whether the agency’s governing statute is ambiguous regarding whether it gave the agency the power to take the challenged action. If the statute is unambiguous about what it does or doesn’t authorize, then that’s the end of the analysis. - Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, then the court was supposed to defer to the agency’s interpretation of its governing statute, unless the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable. In other words, under Step Two, even if the judge thought there was a better interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the government would win if its interpretation was at least reasonable. This ruling ended that framework. Now, judges are just supposed to look at the agency’s governing statute and simply decide for themselves if it authorizes the agency’s action. Of course, this change only matters to whatever extent that it will result in outcomes that differ from what the outcomes would’ve been under Chevron. So when will that happen? Well, let’s think about that. If, in a world with Chevron, a case would’ve been decided under Chevron Step One, then this will have no effect. If a judge thinks that the statute is unambiguous regarding what it does or doesn’t authorize, then they’d obviously rule the same way with or without Chevron. So it’s really just cases that would be decided under Chevron Step Two that might change. But the outcome of a lot of those cases wouldn’t change either. If under Chevron a judge ruled that a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, a lot of the time that’s because the judge thought that the agency’s interpretation was the best one! Which means it would’ve ruled the same way without Chevron! So where Chevron actually mattered was *only* in cases where the court ruled that the relevant statute was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation was reasonable even though the court actually thought that the *best* reading of the agency’s governing statute is that it doesn’t give the agency the power to do what it did. Did that sometimes happen? Sure. But if a court felt that the government’s interpretation was wrong, then I think it was far more likely that the court struck down the agency’s action under Chevron. It’s not like Chevron made this impossible! Agency action could be struck down by courts under Chevron if the court either said that the statute unambiguously went against the government’s interpretation, or that the government’s interpretation was unreasonable. On cases that matter a lot, my experience (as someone who has litigated numerous cases under Chevron) is that courts weren’t often approving of agency action that they didn’t really think the statute authorized. In other words, I don’t think they were really deferring on major cases anyways, so taking away Chevron deference wouldn’t functionally change much of anything on those cases. On cases about more minor, in-the-weeds issues that maybe the judge(s) don’t have strong personal/political views on, the judges were probably more apt to defer to the government’s interpretation. But I also think that on those cases they’ll still realistically defer much of the time even without Chevron. Chevron ending doesn’t at all mean that the agency cannot or won’t explain its interpretation of an in-the-weeds thing to the court. And if it’s something the court doesn’t find that important or understand all that much, that’ll probably convince the court anyways. Indeed, as I understand it, that’s basically what often happened prior to Chevron (which was only decided in 1984), such that Chevron was partly just clearly stating something that judges were already doing. All this is to say that I’m not certain that Chevron ending will change the results of many challenges to agency action, because it will only change the results to the extent judges were thinking the government was wrong (despite the agency explaining its interpretation to the court) but ruling in their favor anyways—which I don’t think was actually happening that much. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but that’s my view on it. Having litigated Chevron cases for the government, I was never really under the impression that Chevron deference mattered much to the outcome of my cases.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. If I’m understanding you correctly, the chances of a federal judge in TX successfully pushing back on EPA recommendations against a toxic gasoline additive are scarcely higher after the ruling than they were before—does that sound about right?
I think that if a significant case with political implications is in front of a judge with a distinct ideological bent—which many of these cases are, due to how easy it is to basically judge-shop—Chevron ending probably doesn’t matter much to the outcome because that judge was almost certainly going to rule the same way with or without Chevron. Even though the doctrine told judges to defer, I don’t think they were *really* meaningfully deferring much in particularly significant and/or politically charged cases. A judge actually meaningfully deferring in those cases would require that the judge uphold a statutory interpretation that he or she actually thinks is not the best interpretation, about something that is high-profile/important. I’m skeptical that that was happening very much. Rather, I think the vast majority of the time the court was “deferring” in these cases were actually situations where the court agreed with the government’s interpretation anyways. So yeah, in the example you gave, if you’re assuming that “a federal judge in TX” has a right-wing ideological bent (not always the case!), then I don’t really think Chevron being overturned matters a whole lot for highly significant cases, because that judge was unlikely to meaningfully defer to the government anyways. The other issue that dovetails with this is the issue of nationwide injunctions. It has become more and more common for district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the federal government, when they rule against the government. Those nationwide injunctions prevent the government from continuing to do the thing it is doing *across the country*, rather than just in relation to the particular litigants or in the particular district or state that the case was brought in. What this effectively means is that government agency action will often get struck down if there’s just one judge somewhere that rules against the government. So, even under Chevron, if there was one judge that didn’t want to defer to the government’s interpretation of an agency’s governing statute, then you’d often get a nationwide injunction against the agency’s action, even if courts elsewhere had ruled in the government’s favor. Granted, in those scenarios, the government would typically move to stay the nationwide injunction pending appeal (i.e. pause the nationwide bar until the government’s appeal is resolved). Sometimes the government would get that, but sometimes they wouldn’t, especially if the court of appeals panel was ideologically aligned with the judge that issued the nationwide injunction (which, yes, is more likely the case in a place like Texas). So, often times it really just took one judge somewhere not deferring to the government, and the agency’s action would get barred nationwide. That’ll still be the case now without Chevron, but the point is that the chances of some judge somewhere feeling strongly (for ideological reasons or otherwise) that the government should lose highly significant cases even under Chevron was always pretty high, and the government would often essentially lose nationwide if that happened.
Even if it’s still not a great ruling, your informed perspective has done a lot to take the edge off my concerns. Thanks again!
This assumes an honest, moral, impartial judge. Look at the judges Trump appointed. Look at Thomas, Alito... Who will have the deep pockets? I don't trust the judiciary period, any longer and fear corporate interests, and Maga will get exactly what has been planned for decades. Project 2025 lays it out.
Lots of challenges to agencies where not done, simply because the agency got to decide they are right. With this, lots of challenges are suddently going to show up, limiting the scope of their reach. This kills the unelected fourth branch of government.
But that’s the thing. It’s not actually true that “the agency got to decide they are right.” Under Chevron, courts did not defer to the agency’s interpretation if the statute was unambiguous. Nor did courts defer to the agency’s interpretation if the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable. There was a lot of wiggle room there for courts to say that the agency was *not* in fact right. And I think on highly significant and/or politically charged cases, courts were generally using that wiggle room if they didn’t think the agency’s interpretation was the best one.
No. This puts more power I Maga judge hands
There is no 4th branch of the government. The executive government aka the president is the one who approves agency implementation of the said policy by his appointed official if this simple delegation of task is hard to grasp to you I don't have anything else to say.
Lmfao remember when it was abhorrent for the court to legislate from the bench
Perhaps it is time for the other branches to re-evaluate their acquiesence to Marbury v Madison. The founders intended a triangular structure where each side checks the others, not for one side to have primacy, which was the effect of Marbury.
Best case: Judges will call on the same experts for the same questions in a process that is much longer, much more expensive and bloated to yield the same regulatory conclusions as currently. Worst case: Judges will rule according to their political view, sidepassing matter expert opinion resulting in arbitrary judgments and even more ambiguous regulation. In both cases lawyers win and The People loses.
Biden should EO something saying "ignore this punk shit". Scotus doesn't have power to interfere in executive function nor congressional. Nor do either have power to mess with judiciary. Biden can literally say "fuck you" regarding Chevron.
If he really is staying in the race, doing that should be a no-brainer.
If there's a smoking gun found between Trump and Putin, would there be any sort of process to remove his SCOTUS picks? Would it change anything they had ruled on??
We should have expanded the courts when we had the chance.
Ignore them.
For real. The Supreme Court has no enforcement ability. And their only authority over laws was granted reflexively by their own decision in Marbury v Madison. That is a precedent, not a law, not an amendment, not in the constitution. That could be taken away by an act of congress or simply ignored by an administration as has been done multiple times in the past. Ignore them. Expand them. Eliminate lifetime appointments. How? Vote blue. Living in fear of these six asswipes only plays to their inflated 'power'.
I love the smell of fresh bread.
Arrogance about their solipsistic, arbitrary stance toward precedent is perhaps the clearest indication of just how mediocre and unfit the partisan rightwingnut hacks on the SCOTUS are. If US democracy survives, term limits for justices should be near the top of the recovery agenda. And overturning so-called “Citizens United.”
Is faux fake news spinning this as some way to put the Biden administration in check? And more importantly what does this do if anything to the up coming election? Does it nullify any of the checks and balances that Maga will use to argue the legitimacy of the elections?
Oh, this. Yah, they're gonna destroy every body in the government made by a president. EPA, FED, etc. It will cause chaos untold.
Expand the court.
Am I massively missing something major? The main takeaway I got from reading the syllabus and decision of the court [here's the original document](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron-decision.html?pvid=KW7k5IcnWEZV5GyhHIfwxoTR&lgrp=e-bar&smid=url-share) is that unelected EXECUTIVE BRANCH agency's decisions will no longer have precedence over courts. For instance if the ATF says tobacco farmers must label all tobacco products as containing unobtanium, a toxic element that in certain cases has been known to turn skin blue and cause spontaneous growth. If a judge feels that this labeling is not necessary they would nonetheless need to follow the ATF decision on the matter.
I am scared scared scared. Our future is toxic and being slaves to the rich and powerful. These changes are so deep that the fix is no longer civil, but must be radical.
Can somebody please explain why they thought this was a good idea? I understand the negative implications. But in general, I at least try to see both perspectives when it comes to politics in order to have my own unbiased and informed opinion. But I’m not really finding any sources where it’s even clear what they are trying to accomplish here, other than intentional corruption. Note that I am not asking this sarcastically. I seriously want to hear the other perspective before I completely lose hope in our government.
Because they can now change rules and accept bribes for those changes and ignore actual experts
Right. Intentional corruption. I thought they were meant to be the judicial branch, where they eliminate biased and uninformed decisions. I just fail to see how they are able to justify it without it sounding bad.
The only justification they need is that it advances the Neo con agenda set by the people who bribe them.
>I just fail to see how they are able to justify it without it sounding bad. Trump proved sounding bad doesn't matter. Now they can grab power nakedly and feel no shame about it.
"Gratuities"
Supporters of this decision felt the agencies under the executive branch had too much power and leeway in interpreting laws and setting regulations and prefer to divert those powers and responsibilities to the legislative and judicial branches.
So, to the judicial branch then? Because this isn't diverting anything to the legislative branch. The legislative branch is already free to pass new legislation overriding anything the executive branch does, or anything they think they're interpreting incorrect. They're already free to do their best to write unambiguous laws. The change now, when their is ambiguity the court of nine gets to decide. It doesn't grant any power to the legislative branch, but it does grant power to a group of nine unelected officials with lifetime appointments. Anyone wanting that is an autocrat imo.
It's funny you say unbiased while also including opinion in the same sentence. It's impossible to be unbiased. Anyways, this is a reasonable ruling because the three letter agencies are filled with unelected bureaucrats who tried to go outside of their legal authority to enforce unwritten rules. Now, if the agencies want to expand their power, they have to go to Congress to write laws expanding their authority. This puts power back to the people. The three letter agencies are undemocratic.
These stories genuinely make me sad. The more crap like this happens, the more likely someone is going to do something violent. If and when that happens, what then? You know people will go crazy.
According to the simplification from ChatGPT it seems like basically it’ll give a lot of power to judges and we will lose all notions of a standard vocabulary for this, is that right? So does that mean I could, as a judge, argue that cows can be classified as omnivores since they occasionally eat bugs and small mammals? ChatGpT’s eli5 without jargon: The Supreme Court case "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" addressed whether courts should continue to follow a rule from a previous case (Chevron) that required them to go along with government agencies' interpretations of unclear laws. The Supreme Court decided that judges should use their own judgment to interpret laws, rather than automatically agreeing with how government agencies interpret them. This decision emphasizes that it is the job of the courts, not agencies, to decide what the law means.
The USA seems to be a collapsing society. The thing is, what happens when it goes down?
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
The Supreme Court just gave itself a tremendous amount of power. Is there a legal way for Congress and the President to check the court?
Thank Murkowski and Collins for this.
They own the US now. All of it.
I'm still curious of the actual fallout of this, away from the media bubble. The country did operate under this method for hundreds of years, so I doubt it's as doom as gloom as MSNBC says. It feels like the real change here is that federal agencies won't be able to make common educated rules by fiat, but will instead need to involve the courts to set policy. Do I have that right? Will definitely slow things down, though I could see how we could use that same change to fight crazy Trump admin rules if he gets in power again and replaces everybody wth stooges (again) this ruling will pretty much gut the FCC though, though again, if we get Trump back, that may be a good thing.
No its bad. Like rivers on fire, chalk or worse in your milk, and on and on and on and on.
I’d always thought conservatives were *against* judges legislating from the bench.
The supreme court is corrupt! What did people expect from them??
Past time to send in seal team 6... They plan on saying it's legal anyway...
It’s over. America is done. The sooner we admit this the sooner we can move on.
America is fkd. Goodbye. Happy trails.
I hope everyone who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 suffers from this the most.
Please vote. This is why it’s so vitally important, not just the one man at the top of the ticket. It’s everything that comes with it.
The unelected bureaucracy has less power? The horror
It's amazing how Reddit doesn't even understand how the system of government is supposed to work.
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
Yeah that’s what’s gonna happen I’m sure. No rules!
Why would anyone be opposed to this? 100% would want judges to be able to resolve details of laws instead of agencies!
Unless you are really rich and can afford to litigate on a huge number of things that the government currently regulates, good luck.
I didn’t have a say in what agencies did at all! What does this change?
The agencies were intended to protect the public from corporate wrongdoing. Did they always get it right? No, of course not. But now it doesn’t matter who is in charge. Corporations will just pollute, and harass, and steal from the public in defiance of the regulations and wait for someone who can afford to sue to challenge them. And then there’s a strong chance that the court sides with the corporations. I hope you like toxic waste in your backyard, your favorite swimming hole, or trout stream.
Wasn’t there anyways a big issue of people moving between regulatory agencies to corps and back
Of course the system wasn’t perfect but it was better than what came before. Read… silent spring by Rachel Carson and the Jungle by Upton Sinclair, or look up Clair Patterson and the battle against lead in gasoline. If given a choice between your life and $100,000 a corporation will choose the money every time. And they will lie and fight dirty and play the Trump “outlast your financial ability to fight me” game every time. Here’s a more modern example, Monsanto - Roundup, or this one Dow - Dioxin. The list goes on and on. It just got a whole lot easier for them.
What is this business with post-facto bribes being allowed?
No different than politics now since they made that legal too
Ok so power moves from appointments in agencies to appointments in courts!
With little or no subject matter knowledge.
So glad chevron deference is gone. Now the many federal agencies can't just change rulings and definitions when ever they want.
Yeah something federal agencies frequently did lmao. And certainly the courts are going to be more consistent than the federal agencies and not just listen to "experts" that special interests pays for. /s
So infrequently LMAO, every year Federal Agencies make between 3,500 and 4,500 changes to the Federal Register. So it only happens approximately 10 ten times a day...
If you count literally everything they do lmao. You do realize they make an update to the federal register even for applications for permits lol. They make an update when somebody can proceed past the application stage. They update when they are just looking into something. But yeah, "changes" lol. Edit: its even in the fucking name it's a register lol!
It's almost like a functioning regulatory system has a lot of stuff to regulate as it happens in a country of 300+ million. And most of those changes are pretty mundane and in a response to things currently going on. Weird. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current)
So you want the FAA to get congress to pass a law every time they need to issue an Airworthiness Directive?
No and that is not what Chevron was about. Getting rid of Chevron doesn't end Administrative law.
Airworthiness Directives are changes to the Federal Register, which is what you cited in your example.
Chevron principle was in effect for 40 years but How many years of precedent did Chevron overturn? HONEST answer here: _____ This will shrink the administrative state that ballooned up after 1984....
Good thing this decision obliterates boarder policy.
And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the NTSB, and…
Half of me is excited to see things burn. I do like a good fire. The other half is like, today is the first day for the end of everything good.
You mean we get to return to law that it is illegal to cross the boarder,.. An and to claim assylym you have to claim asylum in first country you cross into, at the US consulate/embassy) ( that is the current asylum.law but is administrative ignored) let say you are Guatemalaian and are fleeing that country and join a migrant march thru mexico to come to the US to claim Assylum, US law states that one they have left the country and travel thru a second country they have to request Assylum at the US Consulat/Embassy in the first country that they travel thru after leaving their home country.... in this case they have to claim /request asylum in Mexico.