What Was Chevron Deference? (2023)(minimumcomp.com)
minimumcomp.com
What Was Chevron Deference? (2023)
https://www.minimumcomp.com/p/maxmin-chevron-deference
228 comments
> Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border
No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference.
> Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.
Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.
No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference.
> Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.
Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.
I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems. It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.
I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems. It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.
Now instead we will have judges deciding between industry paid experts and the regulators over every single regulation like how much poison it's acceptable to pump into water supplies. People with no background in evaluating studies or the subjects at hand are being given the reigns to arbitrate between businesses and the public over extremely technical issues.
And why not? They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony. Why is direct rule by short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years better than rule by legislation and the interpretation thereof by judges as informed by experts?
Won't it lead to wildly different environmental laws in different states? One state can pump waste it considers safe into a river that is shared with another state who considers that waste harmful? Factories on borders of states can pollute the air in ways they do not agree upon, etc?
In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.
So how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades?
Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
> how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades?
You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
This might work if we were still living in the 1700's, where companies were held in check by the communities they served. Today, they're happy to do the bare minimum required (required today, not in the world you're advocating for) to avoid poisoning the air, water, and their customers.
Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulating companies from competition. And then the government tries to "fix" the problems it had itself caused by doing that with further regulations. Which still doesn't really work because of regulatory capture. If companies did nefarious things a lot less in the 1700s, it was because of the absence of government interference with free markets.
> Or haven't you noticed that our air, water, and products still have all sorts of harmful things in them, despite all the government regulation?
Do you twiddle your mustache and snicker maniacally as you think up these specious arguments? Or are you parroting them from those who do?
Do you twiddle your mustache and snicker maniacally as you think up these specious arguments? Or are you parroting them from those who do?
> Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business.
Is it? What if your profitability depends on using a polluting substance, like PFAS, and not cleaning up after yourself?
> Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason.
Bullshit. We have _many_ examples of the opposite. Remember the whole leaded gasoline hearing, for one. Or the resistance to lead and asbestos phaseout.
Moreover, the "free market" _forces_ companies to do that. After all, suppose that you're a responsible company, and you spend money on installing expensive scrubbers for your wastewater to remove PFAS. Your less-responsible competitors will then outcompete you because their product is cheaper-priced.
That's why you need laws that force _everyone_ to become equally less competitive by not poisoning people.
Is it? What if your profitability depends on using a polluting substance, like PFAS, and not cleaning up after yourself?
> Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason.
Bullshit. We have _many_ examples of the opposite. Remember the whole leaded gasoline hearing, for one. Or the resistance to lead and asbestos phaseout.
Moreover, the "free market" _forces_ companies to do that. After all, suppose that you're a responsible company, and you spend money on installing expensive scrubbers for your wastewater to remove PFAS. Your less-responsible competitors will then outcompete you because their product is cheaper-priced.
That's why you need laws that force _everyone_ to become equally less competitive by not poisoning people.
Companies as we currently know them mostly did not exist in the 1700's. Where they did many of the biggest were monopolies granted by the government.
The free market has never existed on a wide scale, so no company currently has to survive in a free market. It is a thought experiment and in practice regulated markets are far superior because the market is a pretty bad governor for society. Further, to have a free market you need perfect transparency, a state which is not realistically possible to begin with but if it were possible would only be achieved through regulation, such as disclosure requirements.
In that free market, by the way, companies absolutely will poison the air and water, in large part because people do not make purchase decisions based on downstream externalities. Even if they did, they won't be able to prove the company poisoned the river and the company won't be breaking any laws so a lot of people will simply allow it to continue. Now if the products themselves were poisonous, it's possible, but historically this just led to merchants moving from town to town to poison new people who hadn't heard of them.
>The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulating companies from competition.
This is so ridiculous I am not sure you're serious now. Are you just trolling?
The free market has never existed on a wide scale, so no company currently has to survive in a free market. It is a thought experiment and in practice regulated markets are far superior because the market is a pretty bad governor for society. Further, to have a free market you need perfect transparency, a state which is not realistically possible to begin with but if it were possible would only be achieved through regulation, such as disclosure requirements.
In that free market, by the way, companies absolutely will poison the air and water, in large part because people do not make purchase decisions based on downstream externalities. Even if they did, they won't be able to prove the company poisoned the river and the company won't be breaking any laws so a lot of people will simply allow it to continue. Now if the products themselves were poisonous, it's possible, but historically this just led to merchants moving from town to town to poison new people who hadn't heard of them.
>The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulating companies from competition.
This is so ridiculous I am not sure you're serious now. Are you just trolling?
> Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business.
Since when?
Since when?
Aren't judges appointed by administrations as well? Won't the bias change, but just for longer periods of time? Much like what is happening with these recent decisions?
Would you trust a doctor to execute on a large distributed systems project? If they had some advice from a Meta engineer?
Background in one space does not translate at all. We absolutely do not want judges to be on the same level as experts in any field. They are not, and will never be, equivalent to people who are educated in a given space. People spend years and decades of their lives becoming experts in a given space, they cannot be replaced.
Background in one space does not translate at all. We absolutely do not want judges to be on the same level as experts in any field. They are not, and will never be, equivalent to people who are educated in a given space. People spend years and decades of their lives becoming experts in a given space, they cannot be replaced.
Hear, hear. This is why we need to listen to education expert Betsy DeVos, she knows what's best for our education system. Let her set all the rules.
> They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony
They don't have expertise in evaluating scientific studies or the fields those studies cover at all. At best they can decide who they believe more and there's an endless well of industry backed experts available to preach the company line. It's also far less predictable because the outcomes will be massively different depending on the judge involved. It'd be circuit split city if all the cases we're going to be filed in the 5th which is wildly pro business.
> short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years
That's not what happens though, the rules are relatively stable and have legislatively required notice and comment periods where industry can challenge and prepare for coming rules. And once in place they generally remain the same because there's the same process for removing the rules as creating them. Congress also has the ultimate power over these as they can directly write new laws addressing over reaches as they find them.
They don't have expertise in evaluating scientific studies or the fields those studies cover at all. At best they can decide who they believe more and there's an endless well of industry backed experts available to preach the company line. It's also far less predictable because the outcomes will be massively different depending on the judge involved. It'd be circuit split city if all the cases we're going to be filed in the 5th which is wildly pro business.
> short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years
That's not what happens though, the rules are relatively stable and have legislatively required notice and comment periods where industry can challenge and prepare for coming rules. And once in place they generally remain the same because there's the same process for removing the rules as creating them. Congress also has the ultimate power over these as they can directly write new laws addressing over reaches as they find them.
The Supreme Court didn't need a background in programming to decide Google v Oracle. The lawyers arguing before the court weren't programmers either. But you can bet that they were briefed by people who could bridge programming and copyright law.
Oracle v Google was at it's heart just a copyright case with relatively simple facts far from the chore of evaluating if a scientific study has valid evidence for it's claims and conclusions when you've got a bank of experts on either side.
What makes the judges - who are also frequently appointed by an executive and who often hold the position for life regardlesss of their performance - better?
It's not as if judges are bound by expert testimony.
It's not as if judges are bound by expert testimony.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony.
Listen to one of the Flat Earth videos on Youtube. Flat Earthers have very persuasive arguments, and they can be very personable.
Now imagine that the opposing side is a tongue-tied bureaucrat who is afraid of public speeches. In other words, exactly somebody who would want to work as an expert for a government agency.
And imagine that it's not the Flat Earth that they're discussing, but a boring point about alpha-helixes in peptides, or PFAS in drinking water.
How would it go?
And we don't even have to imagine that. The infamous leaded gasoline hearing in 1925 went exactly like that.
Listen to one of the Flat Earth videos on Youtube. Flat Earthers have very persuasive arguments, and they can be very personable.
Now imagine that the opposing side is a tongue-tied bureaucrat who is afraid of public speeches. In other words, exactly somebody who would want to work as an expert for a government agency.
And imagine that it's not the Flat Earth that they're discussing, but a boring point about alpha-helixes in peptides, or PFAS in drinking water.
How would it go?
And we don't even have to imagine that. The infamous leaded gasoline hearing in 1925 went exactly like that.
Nothing stops Congress from included in law that the executive branch agency specifically has the authority required to define and enforce specific metrics. The problem Chevron crested was the situation where congress effectively just approves an agency with broad powers to protect the environment, and from there the EPA does basically whatever they want with little to no accountability.
Neither extreme is ideal. What we should really have is congress passing laws that specify scope of authority and agencies that have been granted enough leeway to do the job effectively without having the power to effectively create law completely outside the balance of powers.
Neither extreme is ideal. What we should really have is congress passing laws that specify scope of authority and agencies that have been granted enough leeway to do the job effectively without having the power to effectively create law completely outside the balance of powers.
This is explicitly not what this ruling means. The Judicial branch will rule is an agency has the power to regulate a limit for X in the water. The limit would still be set by an agency.
[deleted]
They can't be bribed, luckily. They can only be given gifts in thanks for past decisions.
> It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.
One can say the same of any individual change, but it is hard to look back at recent, oh, I don't know, let's say decades, and to think that they have not represented, for better and for worse, fundamental changes in norms and modes of existence, in the US and worldwide.
One can say the same of any individual change, but it is hard to look back at recent, oh, I don't know, let's say decades, and to think that they have not represented, for better and for worse, fundamental changes in norms and modes of existence, in the US and worldwide.
This is, after all, the same forum that predicted the imminent offline-ing of Twitter within a week of the layoffs ~2 years ago, and before that, the lack of federal net neutrality was supposed to be the end of decent internet access.
> I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems.
Oh, don't worry. Republicans are undermining the other pillars. The judicial system is already strained, and if Trump wins, it'll collapse completely.
And unfortunately, the effects won't be visible immediately. It'll be like the US healthcare system: steadily growing more and more expensive, decade after decade, due to systemic issues.
Oh, don't worry. Republicans are undermining the other pillars. The judicial system is already strained, and if Trump wins, it'll collapse completely.
And unfortunately, the effects won't be visible immediately. It'll be like the US healthcare system: steadily growing more and more expensive, decade after decade, due to systemic issues.
Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a completely different list of those pillars I tend to assume that the system is actually quite resilient.
The pillar in question - the judiciary - will be hit pretty hard by the two-hit-combo of the removal of the statue of limitations for challenging regulations, and courts having the burden of going through an entire trial instead of a quick hearing.
Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.
Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.
> the system is actually quite resilient
"Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution.
We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.
"Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution.
We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.
Not all perspectives are equal.
Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?
Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?
I consider any perspective held by approximately 50% of the population to be worth the time it takes for me to understand it and accurately articulate it.
This comment exemplifies the kind of unthinking elitism that landed us with Trump in the first place. You treat half the population of the United States as non-persons whose perspective you can't be bothered to even attempt to understand and then you're surprised when they elect an extreme candidate rather than try to engage with you?
This comment exemplifies the kind of unthinking elitism that landed us with Trump in the first place. You treat half the population of the United States as non-persons whose perspective you can't be bothered to even attempt to understand and then you're surprised when they elect an extreme candidate rather than try to engage with you?
So… Is this your long-winded way of admitting that you would actually entertain a flat earther’s opinion to be equivalent to a scientist’s? Not sure there’s any other way to interpret what you wrote other than you think reality takes a back seat to a popularity contest fueled by lies.
I think that when you disagree with 50% of the population you should at least take the time to actually understand what they believe instead of just inventing your own caricatures. You might actually learn something, and even if your views remain unchanged simple self preservation calls for you to understand the people who are consistently voting out your preferred platform.
Beating a straw man is easy but doesn't accomplish anything.
Beating a straw man is easy but doesn't accomplish anything.
[deleted]
It wouldn't be a single pillar if Congress functioned but they haven't at least since the 90s and there's little chance of that changing. It will be a huge mess.
Messes tend to beget solutions. My personal theory is it gets messy and then we fix Congress because the bandaid is finally gone.
> fix Congress
We will have to fix the judiciary as well, as they can just undo anything the legislative or executive does through judicial review and activist interpretation. There are no repercussions for doing so, as there are lifetime appointments.
We will have to fix the judiciary as well, as they can just undo anything the legislative or executive does through judicial review and activist interpretation. There are no repercussions for doing so, as there are lifetime appointments.
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.
Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are not things that should be done anyway, at least not by the government.
Also, the entire apparatus of the administrative state, with executive branch agencies issuing regulations that have the force of law, is arguably unconstitutional: Article I of the Constitutions say that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and does not allow Congress to delegate it. The justification given by the government, and accepted by the Supreme Court in Hampton Co. v. United States, was that it is ok for Congress to delegate lawmaking to executive branch agencies as long as it gives them an "intelligible principle" to guide them. That is one of many examples of Supreme Court decisions that have no recognizable basis in the Constitution.
Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are not things that should be done anyway, at least not by the government.
Also, the entire apparatus of the administrative state, with executive branch agencies issuing regulations that have the force of law, is arguably unconstitutional: Article I of the Constitutions say that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and does not allow Congress to delegate it. The justification given by the government, and accepted by the Supreme Court in Hampton Co. v. United States, was that it is ok for Congress to delegate lawmaking to executive branch agencies as long as it gives them an "intelligible principle" to guide them. That is one of many examples of Supreme Court decisions that have no recognizable basis in the Constitution.
The thing is, what you want is WORSE than the current state.
The rule-making process is extremely heavy-weight and slow. On purpose, so the public can comment and challenge the rules at multiple checkpoints. And for most of the routine regular rules (not something "big" like Net Neutrality), the comments are treated seriously.
So now imagine that EVERYTHING has to go through the Congress. Congresscritters don't have expertise or time to evaluate and argue each individual point of regulations. So they'll be bundled into omnibus bills, prepared by shady lobbyist groups. There will be no way for you to influence them, especially if your local Congresscritter is not on the relevant committee.
And again, even with Chevron deference, the Congress can easily override any regulation by passing a law.
The rule-making process is extremely heavy-weight and slow. On purpose, so the public can comment and challenge the rules at multiple checkpoints. And for most of the routine regular rules (not something "big" like Net Neutrality), the comments are treated seriously.
So now imagine that EVERYTHING has to go through the Congress. Congresscritters don't have expertise or time to evaluate and argue each individual point of regulations. So they'll be bundled into omnibus bills, prepared by shady lobbyist groups. There will be no way for you to influence them, especially if your local Congresscritter is not on the relevant committee.
And again, even with Chevron deference, the Congress can easily override any regulation by passing a law.
> what you want is WORSE than the current state.
No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageable, and that is a good thing. We have far too many laws as it is. The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.
No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageable, and that is a good thing. We have far too many laws as it is. The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.
> No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says
Yes, and it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency".
> We have far too many laws as it is
The US actually doesn't have too many Federal laws. Other large countries have a similar number of regulations.
> The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.
Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.
Yes, and it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency".
> We have far too many laws as it is
The US actually doesn't have too many Federal laws. Other large countries have a similar number of regulations.
> The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.
Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.
> it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency".
No, it can't. Article I of the Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress. It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Agency regulations have the force of law, so they are laws as far as the Constitution is concerned, and are supposed to be passed by Congress according to the process given in the Constitution.
> Other large countries have a similar number of regulations.
That just means other countries also have too many laws. But more than that, if other countries want to have too many laws, that's their problem. They don't have the same Constitution the US does. The US Constitution was intended for a country that did not want a large body of Federal law micromanaging all aspects of people's lives.
> Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.
Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. The fact that we all want our food to be safe and construction to be done properly does not mean the government should be making the detailed rules for how those things are done; but our government has chosen to do it anyway because of ideology and failed social policy. In fact having the government do these things is a detriment to those goals, not a help. We have huge factory farms pumping food animals full of antibiotics because of government regulations that favor that kind of farming, not because it makes our food safer; it actually makes our food less safe, but government food safety inspectors watch it happen all the time and do nothing. We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
No, it can't. Article I of the Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress. It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Agency regulations have the force of law, so they are laws as far as the Constitution is concerned, and are supposed to be passed by Congress according to the process given in the Constitution.
> Other large countries have a similar number of regulations.
That just means other countries also have too many laws. But more than that, if other countries want to have too many laws, that's their problem. They don't have the same Constitution the US does. The US Constitution was intended for a country that did not want a large body of Federal law micromanaging all aspects of people's lives.
> Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.
Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. The fact that we all want our food to be safe and construction to be done properly does not mean the government should be making the detailed rules for how those things are done; but our government has chosen to do it anyway because of ideology and failed social policy. In fact having the government do these things is a detriment to those goals, not a help. We have huge factory farms pumping food animals full of antibiotics because of government regulations that favor that kind of farming, not because it makes our food safer; it actually makes our food less safe, but government food safety inspectors watch it happen all the time and do nothing. We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
> It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws.
Can you cite that article?
> That just means other countries also have too many laws.
Yeah. And only free-market fundamentalists know better. And when somebody points out the consequences of their actions, they always tell that the consequences are caused by "the government". And that it was not a true free market, because the True Free Market is (by definition!) always perfect.
Examples: historical USA, China during 2000-2020-s, Africa right now.
> Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy.
Yeah. No.
> We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
You know, here's an anecdote for you. Wood-frame houses in Russia are almost impossible to sell, even though they are cheaper and better than houses constructed from concrete blocks. Do you know why?
Because you can't easily inspect the quality of construction, as all the critical elements are hidden inside the walls. And there are no mandatory state inspections of houses in Russia, so anyone can build houses however they want. And wood-frame houses are often built by companies that are straightforwardly incompetent and/or cut corners during the construction.
The end result? People are spending more money to be sure that their house does not rot in 3 years due to incorrectly installed insulation.
Can you cite that article?
> That just means other countries also have too many laws.
Yeah. And only free-market fundamentalists know better. And when somebody points out the consequences of their actions, they always tell that the consequences are caused by "the government". And that it was not a true free market, because the True Free Market is (by definition!) always perfect.
Examples: historical USA, China during 2000-2020-s, Africa right now.
> Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy.
Yeah. No.
> We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
You know, here's an anecdote for you. Wood-frame houses in Russia are almost impossible to sell, even though they are cheaper and better than houses constructed from concrete blocks. Do you know why?
Because you can't easily inspect the quality of construction, as all the critical elements are hidden inside the walls. And there are no mandatory state inspections of houses in Russia, so anyone can build houses however they want. And wood-frame houses are often built by companies that are straightforwardly incompetent and/or cut corners during the construction.
The end result? People are spending more money to be sure that their house does not rot in 3 years due to incorrectly installed insulation.
Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No delegation anywhere.
It does not prohibit delegation. For example, there's no article saying that the lawmakers don't have to write laws in their blood, either.
> We have far too many laws as it is
If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that's far from the case and we have endless examples of what happens the moment they find a way to rack up massive short term profits because a regulation has been loosened because "well we haven't had that kind of failure in decades!".
We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws (and they're redoing it now under the toothless version we've been gifted by the courts). It's all bad for anyone except the owners and bosses.
If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that's far from the case and we have endless examples of what happens the moment they find a way to rack up massive short term profits because a regulation has been loosened because "well we haven't had that kind of failure in decades!".
We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws (and they're redoing it now under the toothless version we've been gifted by the courts). It's all bad for anyone except the owners and bosses.
> If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits
We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term.
The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do.
> We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules.
We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments.
> We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws
Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services.
In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.
We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term.
The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do.
> We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules.
We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments.
> We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws
Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services.
In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.
> Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient.
You clearly have not studied the history.
You clearly have not studied the history.
You are arguing for a less effective state though. At some point you have to accept that if we follow the constitution to a T it will lead to measurably bad outcomes that we ought to attempt to avoid. Constitutional amendments are impossible due to tribalism, passing laws is next to impossible because congress is broken. Our options are “corporations write all regulations” or “we stretch the constitution so that experts can write sensible rules”
> You are arguing for a less effective state though.
Less effective at messing things up, yes. You left out an alternative: corporations don't get government favors so they actually have to satisfy customers to stay in business.
Less effective at messing things up, yes. You left out an alternative: corporations don't get government favors so they actually have to satisfy customers to stay in business.
When have consumers ever cared about the externalities of the products they consume? You think that if a company starts polluting a river somewhere that will make a material difference to their business if the government couldn’t step in to stop them? Honestly I’m pretty sure that’d be good for sales sinxe they can offer the product at a lower price since they don’t need to clean up after themselves.
The government needs to be able to solve market failures in a timely manner.
The government needs to be able to solve market failures in a timely manner.
It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.
Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
Corrected, thank you.
> It was never allowed to be challenged post 1976.
And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame?
The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed.
> Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s.
I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953.
> Your counterpoint is outrageous.
You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.
And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame?
The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed.
> Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s.
I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953.
> Your counterpoint is outrageous.
You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.
> Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB.
Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP.
USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP.
USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
What makes you so confident that were always going to be better off allowing the executive branch to functionally define law?
The Chevron deference has always seemed to me to be a workaround when the balance of powers is inconvenient. Congress can avoid debating and voting on a bill and the executive branch gets to effectively write law without legislating it through an elected congress.
The Chevron deference has always seemed to me to be a workaround when the balance of powers is inconvenient. Congress can avoid debating and voting on a bill and the executive branch gets to effectively write law without legislating it through an elected congress.
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.
That's not really true; the US--including a generally modern administrative state--worked "at all" when Skidmore deference (which existed before Chevron and applied with wider scope) was the only form of deference to administrative agencies required by Supreme Court preference. Leaving aside the question of whether it is legally correct, overturning Chevron is not apocalyptic, and it is also relatively easily reversible, since it was not a decision about the Constitutional separation of powers but the interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It can be, to the extent necessary, undone by statute, either specific grants to specific agencies regarding specific laws or broadly by amending or superceding the relevant provisions of the APA.
Loper Bright moves more power to the (lower, obviously, as the Supreme Court could always do what it did there) courts than they had under Chevron, and it will increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and the degree to which -- as a direct consequence -- wealthy interests are inherently favored by the cost of resolving disputes in a wide range of areas until and unless legislative changes are made. But it isn't apocalyptic on its own.
(Obviously, it increases the cost of Congressional dysfunction, though, which has been a serious problem recently.)
That's not really true; the US--including a generally modern administrative state--worked "at all" when Skidmore deference (which existed before Chevron and applied with wider scope) was the only form of deference to administrative agencies required by Supreme Court preference. Leaving aside the question of whether it is legally correct, overturning Chevron is not apocalyptic, and it is also relatively easily reversible, since it was not a decision about the Constitutional separation of powers but the interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It can be, to the extent necessary, undone by statute, either specific grants to specific agencies regarding specific laws or broadly by amending or superceding the relevant provisions of the APA.
Loper Bright moves more power to the (lower, obviously, as the Supreme Court could always do what it did there) courts than they had under Chevron, and it will increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and the degree to which -- as a direct consequence -- wealthy interests are inherently favored by the cost of resolving disputes in a wide range of areas until and unless legislative changes are made. But it isn't apocalyptic on its own.
(Obviously, it increases the cost of Congressional dysfunction, though, which has been a serious problem recently.)
You are both being overly dramatic about this. The system will continue to function and adjustments will be made for the new legal reality.
When any regulation (SCOTUS also removed the statutes of limitations for "new" companies) able to be challenged by a lawsuit in a court, and there are hundreds of thousands of regulations in place, how could the courts keep up? They're somewhat understaffed as it is.
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.
A judicial doctrine concocted by conservatives in 1984 so that the Reagan administration could let an oil company pollute more is “the reason the US works at all”?
A more liberal Supreme Court might have sided with the environmentalists and upheld the decision below (written by none other than the notorious RBG-she hadn’t been elevated to the Supreme Court yet). It’s a good thing that didn’t happen, because then the US would have stopped working
A judicial doctrine concocted by conservatives in 1984 so that the Reagan administration could let an oil company pollute more is “the reason the US works at all”?
A more liberal Supreme Court might have sided with the environmentalists and upheld the decision below (written by none other than the notorious RBG-she hadn’t been elevated to the Supreme Court yet). It’s a good thing that didn’t happen, because then the US would have stopped working
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all.
I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision
Not to say that I agree with the recent supreme court decision, but eventually the dust will settle
I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision
Not to say that I agree with the recent supreme court decision, but eventually the dust will settle
> I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision
Yeah. Some rivers caught fire here and there, but otherwise it had been OK.
Yeah. Some rivers caught fire here and there, but otherwise it had been OK.
This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?
Chevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is.
You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s.
https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...
You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s.
https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...
That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.
> stated intention
Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
It's not as if judges are any more or less political. They're also not elected in most cases.
It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.
It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.
The Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...
It's not credible.
George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c...
And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c...
And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...
The comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?
[deleted]
That doesn't sound right. Chevron doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want - the court always has the authority to step in and say "Hey, that's unconstitutional," when it is actually unconstitutional.
Right. Chevron was about letting agencies help interpret ambiguous statutes that delegate authority from Congress to an agency.
But by definition, Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have. In particular, Congress doesn't have the authority to transgress the Constitution.
So there's no question of whether the statute permits the agency to transgress the Constitution. It never does and never can. Even if the law said "Congress authorizes the CBP to violate the Constitutition," the agency would still not be authorized to violate the Constitution.
But by definition, Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have. In particular, Congress doesn't have the authority to transgress the Constitution.
So there's no question of whether the statute permits the agency to transgress the Constitution. It never does and never can. Even if the law said "Congress authorizes the CBP to violate the Constitutition," the agency would still not be authorized to violate the Constitution.
This suggests that overturning Chevron will not have any meaningful effect on CBP policies. They are already overtly illegal with no consequences.
When Chevron was active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.
In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.
In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.
Can you cite any case that proves this bizarre interpretation? Has the CBP ever been challenged on its practices, and have the case rest on Chevron deference?
As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
Chevron deference has little to nothing to do with constitutionality. It is a principle that says when Congress makes (ambiguous) laws and executive bodies interpret them according to their best judgment (having come to that judgment through an orderly and open process) the judiciary will defer to that executive body's judgment that they are following congressional intent.
If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.
If something CBP does is challenged on its constitutionality the court doesn't need to go to Chevron, it will say that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.
> When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron.
Do you have one source for this? A case where someone tried, or a blog post by a legal expert discussing this?
Do you have one source for this? A case where someone tried, or a blog post by a legal expert discussing this?
If a law could be challenged, but a regulation based on that law can't be challenged, then that's a problem and we should get rid of that specific issue. But that's not the main point of Chevron and doesn't require overturning the entire thing.
Theoretically maybe, but I find it difficult the believe that a conservative court will do anything to liberalize border policing. More likely they will find/invent some new justification to allow it, possibly requiring even tougher policing.
There was a presumption that the government is right, so the application of the law was not impartial.
That is absolutely not what chevron was.
Chevron was essentially the decision that an agency established by congress to make rules for a domain had rulemaking powers for that domain so long as it doesn't go against express congressional decisions.
Chevron was essentially the decision that an agency established by congress to make rules for a domain had rulemaking powers for that domain so long as it doesn't go against express congressional decisions.
I love seeing new accounts pop up that only seem to exist to support specific SCOTUS decisions with misleading claims like this one.
If it's so misleading then explain why.
The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
?
This recent change in the supreme court was made with the intent of letting huge corporations bully the EPA and the like. It will not help anyone at the border being bullied by law enforcement.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
?
This recent change in the supreme court was made with the intent of letting huge corporations bully the EPA and the like. It will not help anyone at the border being bullied by law enforcement.
There is nothing about Chevron that says an agency can decide when the constitution applies.
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority."
Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-in...
This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. I would imagine it will now be challenged.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-in...
This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. I would imagine it will now be challenged.
Nothing at all in that decision has anything to do with Chevron. It's in fact almost the exact opposite of that: the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the final say on CBP's behavior, judges must defer to Congress.
Even if the law is a bit hard to understand, it's beyond obvious that the current Supreme Court, the same court that ruled on both of these decisions, intends for federal law enforcement officers to be immune from the law, while agencies are not able to make any decision beyond what Congress says. So the CBP, or at least its officers, will be even more powerful, while the EPA and FDA and FAA and FCC will be almost unable to do anything.
Even if the law is a bit hard to understand, it's beyond obvious that the current Supreme Court, the same court that ruled on both of these decisions, intends for federal law enforcement officers to be immune from the law, while agencies are not able to make any decision beyond what Congress says. So the CBP, or at least its officers, will be even more powerful, while the EPA and FDA and FAA and FCC will be almost unable to do anything.
> This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place
Respectfully, language like this makes you look very partisan. Of course it could be challenged. How do you think Chevron got thrown out? Because something concerning it was challenged.
Still, it doesn't support your claim that Chevron means that an agency can interpret the constitution. That's not at all what Chevron says and it isn't true.
Respectfully, language like this makes you look very partisan. Of course it could be challenged. How do you think Chevron got thrown out? Because something concerning it was challenged.
Still, it doesn't support your claim that Chevron means that an agency can interpret the constitution. That's not at all what Chevron says and it isn't true.
>This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place.
That's just not correct.
That's just not correct.
Can you substantiate this claim?
> When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.
Specifically that Chevron enables this - I don't see how Chevron applies here.
> When Chevron as active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.
Specifically that Chevron enables this - I don't see how Chevron applies here.
No it didn't. This is another nonsense defense of an extreme activist conservative court just like when they decided to take away people's rights to choose solely didn't like Abortion without any reason (Roe vs Wades logic hasn't changed, merely the number of exteemly conservative judges on the court). They don't like regulations so they'll blow up the ways regulations have worked even though it will make a huge mess and overload the already way too busy courts.
> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border
That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them.
And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.
That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them.
And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.
Oh, really? So now it is not the case at all?
I haven't heard anything from CBP, so we can all guess your "fact" is disingenuous...
(And if it were really the case, how long before it is even more enshrined in law?)
I haven't heard anything from CBP, so we can all guess your "fact" is disingenuous...
(And if it were really the case, how long before it is even more enshrined in law?)
Kagan's dissent is pretty damning. Essentially breaks the way modern government works, long term. Imagine a corporation challenging the EPA's right to limit PFAS, because Congress didn't explicitly carve it out in the original legislation. Practically speaking, it also makes the courts the supreme lay of the land when it comes to regulations, since they will have the power to challenge or overrule basically anything and congress is perpetually gridlocked for a generation. In addition, they can reinterpret anything congress passes ex post facto as being too ambiguous.
Some judge in Texas might allow a company to dump chemicals, because they are ignorant of chemistry or listened to the corporate experts trotted out to explain why forever chemicals are fine.
None of these changes are for the good of the people, long term.
https://newrepublic.com/post/183269/elena-kagan-supreme-cour...
https://www.courthousenews.com/after-scathing-kagan-dissent-...
You can read the entire passage here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Some judge in Texas might allow a company to dump chemicals, because they are ignorant of chemistry or listened to the corporate experts trotted out to explain why forever chemicals are fine.
None of these changes are for the good of the people, long term.
https://newrepublic.com/post/183269/elena-kagan-supreme-cour...
https://www.courthousenews.com/after-scathing-kagan-dissent-...
You can read the entire passage here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Would I be right to assume this means more regulatory lawsuits not fewer?
With the added bonus of each jurisdiction’s judge deciding which regulations are too harsh against the poor corporations.
My question is whether we will see the inverse happening: people suing local companies and winning lawsuits forcing the corpos to follow the law rather than relying on government agencies to do it on the public’s behalf.
My question is whether we will see the inverse happening: people suing local companies and winning lawsuits forcing the corpos to follow the law rather than relying on government agencies to do it on the public’s behalf.
You should look up the lawsuit that led to chevron being overturned, maybe you wouldn’t be making such a caricature out of it. Hint: it wasn’t some big corporation looking to skirt regulations.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was brought by Ryan Mulvey and Eric Bolinder of the Americans for Prosperity, which is the primary advocacy arm of the Koch brothers to weaken various regulatory bodies.
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce was brought by lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is also funded by the Koch brothers
so hint: it definitely was "big" entities looking to skirt regulations
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce was brought by lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is also funded by the Koch brothers
so hint: it definitely was "big" entities looking to skirt regulations
You mean the small poor business whose case was bankrolled by the Koch brothers? it's just a vehicle for deregulation, funded and powered by large corporate interests.
So you’re saying the small business wasn’t actually suffering at the hand of a government agency?
Big picture, yes this won't do anything for small business. They won't be able to afford expensive court fees and challenges. Koch could not care about what a tiny business gets up to or some kind of business equity problem.
The decision has very little to do with a small business problem and the real reason for all of this is complete deregulation of vast corporate enterprises who will challenge every single environmental regulation.
To paint it as "small business stands up to big govt" is at best, hopelessly naive, and at worst, corporate propaganda and outright lies.
The decision has very little to do with a small business problem and the real reason for all of this is complete deregulation of vast corporate enterprises who will challenge every single environmental regulation.
To paint it as "small business stands up to big govt" is at best, hopelessly naive, and at worst, corporate propaganda and outright lies.
I don't know if I put much stock in that. It is well known that powerful interests choose the most sympathetic litigant possible when they want to see the court make a ruling that will ultimately be in their benefit.
The political and business environments are absolutely not the same when a chevron was ruled. It’s completely disingenuous to say corpos will be ethical when you see what kinds of companies fight the EPA.
Corporations have vastly more power and influence in our government than they did in the 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s.
I do not trust these entities to stop rat fucking innocent Americans because they had the audacity to not want to be poisoned.
Corporations have vastly more power and influence in our government than they did in the 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s.
I do not trust these entities to stop rat fucking innocent Americans because they had the audacity to not want to be poisoned.
Yep, just two brothers named Koch.
I predict open warfare between the Ninth and Fifth Circuit.
they will not have standing
The entire point of this case was to dismantle the as many regulations as possible.
The end goal is to make sure all federal regulations come from Congress, which limits what regulations can be made because the Republicans will just say no to everything.
The end goal is to make sure all federal regulations come from Congress, which limits what regulations can be made because the Republicans will just say no to everything.
The result is to give more power to the courts, not Congress. The safe assumption is that Congress will still write laws that are open to interpretation because otherwise the bills would be too big and complex for congressmen to handle. The difference is now when there is something ambiguous in the law the courts get to decide how it is interpreted instead of the relevant federal agencies because judges are better equipped to deal with the technical minutia of complex systems than the subject matter experts at the agencies. They are better equipped because the Heritage Foundation has been stacking the courts for years now in preparation for this ruling.
My children may yet get to witness rivers catching on fire, a spectacle that had been denied to them by the killjoys at the EPA.
My children may yet get to witness rivers catching on fire, a spectacle that had been denied to them by the killjoys at the EPA.
It doesn't immediately do so, though. Part of the ruling is that the status quo is maintained; there's no obligation for agencies to proactively remove regulations in response to how they guess some court somewhere might rule on a hypothetical lawsuit.
So lawsuits have to be filed, first. So they will. Some of them may be resolved by the agencies just rolling over and doing the moral equivalent of pleading guilty, but if I know my principles of bureaucracy, that will be the rare exception, probably only so they can dedicate resources to some other more important lawsuit.
So lawsuits have to be filed, first. So they will. Some of them may be resolved by the agencies just rolling over and doing the moral equivalent of pleading guilty, but if I know my principles of bureaucracy, that will be the rare exception, probably only so they can dedicate resources to some other more important lawsuit.
And the point of the "maintain status quo" part is to ensure the pain comes slowly, over the course of a decade or so, as court cases make their way through the system, only taking tiny bites out of the regulatory framework at a time, to make it really hard to point out how much overturning Chevron has hurt regulation in the US
My understanding is that ambiguity in regulations was decided by agency. This would be an incentive for legislature/regulators to define in excruciating detail the precise boundaries of the regulations which definitely means more. Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation.
> Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation.
And all of it will be written by corporate lobbyists. It's already that way now, of course, it's not like congressmen write any meaningful amount of legislation themselves, but now there will be an even larger army of unelected special interests making sure the regulations are very carefully tailored in their own best interests.
And all of it will be written by corporate lobbyists. It's already that way now, of course, it's not like congressmen write any meaningful amount of legislation themselves, but now there will be an even larger army of unelected special interests making sure the regulations are very carefully tailored in their own best interests.
It’s been explicit goal of Conservatives for decades to remove “over regulation” and now thanks to this precedent newly instantiated corporations in the Texas 5th district can shop around to whatever judge they want and effectively strip any regulation now and forever; which has in fact already happened with a Texas judge ruling the FTC can’t ban non compete clauses
(https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)
(https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)
That works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation. I am not convinced that the Conservatives will like the long term result of this decision; unintended consequences, etc. As usual, partisans have blinders on and consistently assume that this time they will permanently gain power and these choices can never be used by their opponents.
> That works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation.
You assume the Democrats want to govern instead of capitulate to the Republicans after enough delay.
You assume the Democrats want to govern instead of capitulate to the Republicans after enough delay.
[deleted]
Exactly not: there is now even more need for minute regulations, drafted by lobbyists and hapless politicians.
AIUI they've already started to be filed, though I don't have a good normal news source I can find to link that fact. This may be because none of them are yet far enough along to be "newsworthy". Lawsuits of this sort take more than a couple of weeks to even get rolling. So I guess class this as rumor.
Yes, way more. In Kagan’s dissent she talks about how the court will now need to decide minutiae of regulation not clearly laid out in the text, involving expertise the court doesn’t have. I can’t seem to copy and paste from this PDF on mobile, but the dissent is well worth a read:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
EDIT: On desktop, pasting in from the dissent:
(Kagan's words) Consider a few examples from the caselaw. They will help show what a typical Chevron question looks like—or really, what a typical Chevron question is. Because when choosing whether to send some class of questions mainly to a court, or mainly to an agency, abstract analysis can only go so far; indeed, it may obscure what matters most. So I begin with the concrete:
- Under the Public Health Service Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates “biological product[s],” including “protein[s].” 42 U. S. C. §262(i)(1). When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a “protein”? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids? See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. FDA, 514 F. Supp. 3d 66, 79–80, 93–106 (DC 2020).
- Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wild- life Service must designate endangered “vertebrate fish or wildlife” species, including “distinct population seg- ment[s]” of those species. 16 U. S. C. §1532(16); see §1533. What makes one population segment “distinct” from another? Must the Service treat the Washington State population of western gray squirrels as “distinct” because it is geographically separated from other western gray squirrels? Or can the Service take into account that the genetic makeup of the Washington population does not differ markedly from the rest? See Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 475 F. 3d 1136, 1140–1145, 1149 (CA9 2007).
- Under the Medicare program, reimbursements to hospitals are adjusted to reflect “differences in hospital wage levels” across “geographic area[s].” 42 U. S. C. §1395ww(d)(3)(E)(i). How should the Department of Health and Human Services measure a “geographic area”? By city? By county? By metropolitan area? See Bellevue Hospital Center v. Leavitt, 443 F. 3d 163, 174– 176 (CA2 2006).
- Congress directed the Department of the Interior and the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise from aircraft flying over Grand Canyon National Park—specifically, to “provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet.” §3(b)(1), 101 Stat. 676; see §3(b)(2). How much noise is consistent with “the natural quiet”? And how much of the park, for how many hours a day, must be that quiet for the “substantial restoration” requirement to be met? See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F. 3d 455, 466–467, 474–475 (CADC 1998).
EDIT: On desktop, pasting in from the dissent:
(Kagan's words) Consider a few examples from the caselaw. They will help show what a typical Chevron question looks like—or really, what a typical Chevron question is. Because when choosing whether to send some class of questions mainly to a court, or mainly to an agency, abstract analysis can only go so far; indeed, it may obscure what matters most. So I begin with the concrete:
- Under the Public Health Service Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates “biological product[s],” including “protein[s].” 42 U. S. C. §262(i)(1). When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a “protein”? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids? See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. FDA, 514 F. Supp. 3d 66, 79–80, 93–106 (DC 2020).
- Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wild- life Service must designate endangered “vertebrate fish or wildlife” species, including “distinct population seg- ment[s]” of those species. 16 U. S. C. §1532(16); see §1533. What makes one population segment “distinct” from another? Must the Service treat the Washington State population of western gray squirrels as “distinct” because it is geographically separated from other western gray squirrels? Or can the Service take into account that the genetic makeup of the Washington population does not differ markedly from the rest? See Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 475 F. 3d 1136, 1140–1145, 1149 (CA9 2007).
- Under the Medicare program, reimbursements to hospitals are adjusted to reflect “differences in hospital wage levels” across “geographic area[s].” 42 U. S. C. §1395ww(d)(3)(E)(i). How should the Department of Health and Human Services measure a “geographic area”? By city? By county? By metropolitan area? See Bellevue Hospital Center v. Leavitt, 443 F. 3d 163, 174– 176 (CA2 2006).
- Congress directed the Department of the Interior and the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise from aircraft flying over Grand Canyon National Park—specifically, to “provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet.” §3(b)(1), 101 Stat. 676; see §3(b)(2). How much noise is consistent with “the natural quiet”? And how much of the park, for how many hours a day, must be that quiet for the “substantial restoration” requirement to be met? See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F. 3d 455, 466–467, 474–475 (CADC 1998).
It was already the case that the courts were having to delegate to expertise they didn’t have (this is a frequent occurrence and not something new) the difference is previously courts had to delegate to government experts and now they don’t.
The courts have long used 'expert witnesses' to make decisions, I expect this will just become even more common going forward. And many times these so-called 'experts' are in fact provided by the very industries that would be affected by legislative decisions. On the surface what looks like a significant increase of power by the judiciary seems really to be effectively an additional capture by corporations.
Maybe it was already that way by a different route, but still.
Maybe it was already that way by a different route, but still.
Seems likely. It’s at least another turn of the crank in the normalization of a quasi-legislative judiciary ever less concerned with seeming impartial.
Lawsuits are costly in time and money: on balance one would expect more lawsuits as the judiciary becomes more powerful, and fewer the easier it becomes to predict how judges will rule. Which tendency is stronger remains to be seen.
Lawsuits are costly in time and money: on balance one would expect more lawsuits as the judiciary becomes more powerful, and fewer the easier it becomes to predict how judges will rule. Which tendency is stronger remains to be seen.
Yes. Please put some time into thinking about creative challenges to the surveillance state side of things. They want to limit agencies powers then surveillance powers should be the first we go after.
That's not going to happen, unfortunately, because a lot of the surveillance powers are explicitly authorized or otherwise not ambiguous, and did not rely on Chevron deference.
Not specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary.
I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.
I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.
Legislation is always the first-line rule maker, this is about deciding who is the second-line rule maker - the administrative state of experts and political appointees, or the judicial state of, well, political appointees.
Yeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case.
This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
Perhaps a better word for that would not be conservative but not interventionist. I think some of that is possible (less interventist) but the US unlike the UK is built around the supreme court deciding according to the constitution. The UK makes Parliamentary supremacy work but even if we could throw out the constitution I don't think Americans would trust that idea.
That said getting rid of the Chevron defense and a lot of other rulings from the court have been both very activist, very harmful, and badly argued.
That said getting rid of the Chevron defense and a lot of other rulings from the court have been both very activist, very harmful, and badly argued.
What if a previous judicial interpretation violated this rule, it is better to reverse the decision (changing society again) or to stick with it?
It didn't. The previous ruling acknowledged that Congress had delegated that authority.
I was speaking in general terms, not referring to a specific decision.
…with the parliament, not the judiciary[and now that it is overturned, certainly not with bureaucrats who run agencies].
> The Chevron deference doctrine or just “Chevron deference” was limited to cases where a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue is implicit rather than explicit
This is the first time I've heard this specific dimension about it. Am I correct in understanding that if the law explicitly delegates to an administrative agency, that's a different scenario?
I've read all about how the Chevron defense keeps the government functioning because we don't want Congress to have to decide every little thing in the laws, and to let the experts in the agency figure out the details. But it sounds like if the law explicitly says "XYZ to be determined by Agency ABC" then that's not something covered by the Chevron defense? Have there been lawsuits against agencies in that case? If not, why not? And does that mean the answer going forward is for Congress to be explicit about what they're delegating and to whom? That doesn't seem so bad, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what it's saying here.
This is the first time I've heard this specific dimension about it. Am I correct in understanding that if the law explicitly delegates to an administrative agency, that's a different scenario?
I've read all about how the Chevron defense keeps the government functioning because we don't want Congress to have to decide every little thing in the laws, and to let the experts in the agency figure out the details. But it sounds like if the law explicitly says "XYZ to be determined by Agency ABC" then that's not something covered by the Chevron defense? Have there been lawsuits against agencies in that case? If not, why not? And does that mean the answer going forward is for Congress to be explicit about what they're delegating and to whom? That doesn't seem so bad, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what it's saying here.
The problem is when the law is vague regarding a particular issue. Look at Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 requires the EPA to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
The main question of that case was whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" that causes "air pollution". Unsurprisingly, the CAA didn't specify each and every "air pollutant", rather Congress implicitly left it to the EPA.
So the problem was not whether Congress had explicitly delegated regulation to an administrative agency but whether the EPA was required by statute to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Going forward, deference to the administrative agency is not required. The judiciary can certainly still side with an administrative agency. However, the courts will have to play a larger role in addressing technical statutory questions. The courts have always been able to disregard agency expertise (as SCOTUS just did), this just signals a greater willingness to do so.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 requires the EPA to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
The main question of that case was whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" that causes "air pollution". Unsurprisingly, the CAA didn't specify each and every "air pollutant", rather Congress implicitly left it to the EPA.
So the problem was not whether Congress had explicitly delegated regulation to an administrative agency but whether the EPA was required by statute to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Going forward, deference to the administrative agency is not required. The judiciary can certainly still side with an administrative agency. However, the courts will have to play a larger role in addressing technical statutory questions. The courts have always been able to disregard agency expertise (as SCOTUS just did), this just signals a greater willingness to do so.
IANAL, but my understanding is that chevron interacts weirdly with the administrative procedures act.
So, one of the big problems with chevron deference is that when the laws says XYZ to be determined by agency ABC and agency ABC determines Q, but an election happens, the president gets up and makes a big populist speech, issues an executive order and now agency ABC determines R instead. This is a problem because under chevron + APA, the agency determination of both Q and R which may be contradictory both have the force of law and the courts were bound to simply defer to the interpretation.
You have agency making rules which have the force of law but the "law" is changing without the authorizing statute having changed and the courts' hands were tied by chevron. This is especially problematic when the rulemaking has associated criminal penalties.
Now, just because chevron deference no longer exists doesn't mean that agencies cannot make rules, but it does mean that if an agency makes a wild swing in rulemaking without a change in the underlying statute then its much easier to challenge that action. Ultimately, we want these things in the hands of the representative branch of the legislature anyway. One can dream anyway...
So, one of the big problems with chevron deference is that when the laws says XYZ to be determined by agency ABC and agency ABC determines Q, but an election happens, the president gets up and makes a big populist speech, issues an executive order and now agency ABC determines R instead. This is a problem because under chevron + APA, the agency determination of both Q and R which may be contradictory both have the force of law and the courts were bound to simply defer to the interpretation.
You have agency making rules which have the force of law but the "law" is changing without the authorizing statute having changed and the courts' hands were tied by chevron. This is especially problematic when the rulemaking has associated criminal penalties.
Now, just because chevron deference no longer exists doesn't mean that agencies cannot make rules, but it does mean that if an agency makes a wild swing in rulemaking without a change in the underlying statute then its much easier to challenge that action. Ultimately, we want these things in the hands of the representative branch of the legislature anyway. One can dream anyway...
Chevron deference was abused to circumvent the inability of congress to make laws that were too politically divisive. Eventually sustainability regulations were enacted through these measures when this should have first been explicitly permitted.
Seems to me that if Congress would prefer that any disputes arising from the implementation of their laws be handled by the admistrative agency charged with enforcing it, all they need to do is say so in the law. Not sure how the courts could get around that.
Difficulty: Congress almost never passes substantive laws anymore.
No way you’re getting a with-teeth EPA law, for example, through a modern Congress until we’re back to smog clouds over our cities and burning rivers and creating new, large cancer districts and superfund sites. And that’ll have to go on for a while before it happens. Then, maybe.
We’ve been coasting on good laws from the 70s and earlier, mostly, while weakening regulation has been eating our foundation like termites (especially Chicago-school-driven judicial rulings on how the executive is allowed to enforce anti-trust, in the late 70s, and later removal of media ownership consolidation rules). Now they (people who wish they could hurt people while making money and not be told to stop) can attack those good laws directly.
No way you’re getting a with-teeth EPA law, for example, through a modern Congress until we’re back to smog clouds over our cities and burning rivers and creating new, large cancer districts and superfund sites. And that’ll have to go on for a while before it happens. Then, maybe.
We’ve been coasting on good laws from the 70s and earlier, mostly, while weakening regulation has been eating our foundation like termites (especially Chicago-school-driven judicial rulings on how the executive is allowed to enforce anti-trust, in the late 70s, and later removal of media ownership consolidation rules). Now they (people who wish they could hurt people while making money and not be told to stop) can attack those good laws directly.
> Not sure how the courts could get around that.
Like any other law, they rule it as unconstitutional. Appeal its way up to the SCOTUS, and they will ultimately decide if they want to keep the power or give it back to the regulatory agencies.
Like any other law, they rule it as unconstitutional. Appeal its way up to the SCOTUS, and they will ultimately decide if they want to keep the power or give it back to the regulatory agencies.
If only congress was capable of passing laws
[deleted]
Related:
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949
It's honestly very difficult for me to understand why some people don't prioritize the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws and the separation of powers that prevent executive overreach. Sure, this change might lead to more regulatory lawsuits, and we can address that by hiring more judges or drafting clearer laws. I'd prefer judges interpret laws with the advice of regulatory agency experts, even if it results in the same decisions. The potential increase in government size is a small price to pay for upholding constitutional principles.
In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.
In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.
The Chevron Doctrine carried with it a two-step process for judges assessing vagaries in laws:
1. Is it vague about legal matters? For example, does the law seem to allow government agents to search somebody's house without good cause or notice? Then the judge, being an expert in law, should make the call.
2. If not 1, then it seems to be a subject matter vagary. For example (pulling from the dissent), is the Gray Squirrel population in the Pacific Northwest distinct enough from other Gray Squirrel populations in the US to qualify for protection? Should this be determined by geography, genetics, ecosystem similarity? How could we expect a judge to wisely rule on this unless they also have an advanced degree in biology and ecology?
Chevron recognized that matters of law should be decided by judges, but also accepts that we don't have idealized judges who always have perfect understanding. I expect we'll soon see glaring examples of imperfect (a.k.a., human) judges soon.
1. Is it vague about legal matters? For example, does the law seem to allow government agents to search somebody's house without good cause or notice? Then the judge, being an expert in law, should make the call.
2. If not 1, then it seems to be a subject matter vagary. For example (pulling from the dissent), is the Gray Squirrel population in the Pacific Northwest distinct enough from other Gray Squirrel populations in the US to qualify for protection? Should this be determined by geography, genetics, ecosystem similarity? How could we expect a judge to wisely rule on this unless they also have an advanced degree in biology and ecology?
Chevron recognized that matters of law should be decided by judges, but also accepts that we don't have idealized judges who always have perfect understanding. I expect we'll soon see glaring examples of imperfect (a.k.a., human) judges soon.
In US law to establish standing, you have to demonstrate injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability based on the Article III limit requiring courts to address "cases" and "controversies."
This makes us great at redressing harm, and terrible at preventing harm. A lot of modern technology is such an effective force multiplier that the process of establishing standing and having a hearing before a preliminary injunction can be catastrophic, far beyond what was possible when the Constitution was drafted.
Under Chevron, judges deferred to reasonable regulatory interpretations. Now it's a slower, more adversarial process.
I hope you're right and the answer is to just grow the government and judiciary.
This makes us great at redressing harm, and terrible at preventing harm. A lot of modern technology is such an effective force multiplier that the process of establishing standing and having a hearing before a preliminary injunction can be catastrophic, far beyond what was possible when the Constitution was drafted.
Under Chevron, judges deferred to reasonable regulatory interpretations. Now it's a slower, more adversarial process.
I hope you're right and the answer is to just grow the government and judiciary.
The issue here is that instead of hiring more judges there will just be a backlog of court cases. Just look at the asylum situation. Congress is utterly incapable of passing laws which is why executive power has grown.
you don't 'hire more judges.' A political party appoints them. This is simply a way to enshrine right wing rule into the interpretation and application of laws
> the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws
Their constitutional role is quite a lot more limited than their de facto role.
Congress may ultimately decide to assert their dominance, which sounds good, except that Congress is already fully captured by special interests anyway.
Their constitutional role is quite a lot more limited than their de facto role.
Congress may ultimately decide to assert their dominance, which sounds good, except that Congress is already fully captured by special interests anyway.
This isn't about executive overreach. Congress delegated the power, the executive branch oversees implementation the courts step in but only if it's clear the executive branch departments have misinterpreted the law.
This ruling is the thing that is the poison to our nation. It is born not only of extreme conservativism but also nihlism that doesn't care how many things are wrecked if there's less regulation for big businesses. It is extremely cynical ruling that has little relationship to the constitution. Congress has been broken at least since the 90s(thanks Gingrich) and the Chevron defense has helped keep the country working
This ruling is the thing that is the poison to our nation. It is born not only of extreme conservativism but also nihlism that doesn't care how many things are wrecked if there's less regulation for big businesses. It is extremely cynical ruling that has little relationship to the constitution. Congress has been broken at least since the 90s(thanks Gingrich) and the Chevron defense has helped keep the country working
This is a step towards a deeper and more established flaw: differing standards of review.
It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give "strict scrutiny" to some claims, "intermediate scrutiny" to others, and then apply only a "rational basis" test to others. All parties are entitled to "equal paternal conservation of the law" regardless of their class, be that racial, sex, or otherwise.
Early comments by justices in the 50s and 60s stated they never intended to establish such a paradigm, but law schools and lawyers adopted it and essentially foisted it upon the court.
It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give "strict scrutiny" to some claims, "intermediate scrutiny" to others, and then apply only a "rational basis" test to others. All parties are entitled to "equal paternal conservation of the law" regardless of their class, be that racial, sex, or otherwise.
Early comments by justices in the 50s and 60s stated they never intended to establish such a paradigm, but law schools and lawyers adopted it and essentially foisted it upon the court.
What paradigm is available to replace it? Not a Constitutional scholar (though I love the Oyez Project's podcast of SCOTUS oral arguments!), but surely you need the Court to apply a higher standard of review when Congress treads near free speech protections than when they're setting admiralty law.
I suppose one could say, "Just read the text! Congress shall make no law..."
But I think even the strictest originalist would concur that the Framers understood there would be times when Constitutional absolutes would come into conflict and reasonable judgments made, by the Executive, Congress, or the Court.
I suppose one could say, "Just read the text! Congress shall make no law..."
But I think even the strictest originalist would concur that the Framers understood there would be times when Constitutional absolutes would come into conflict and reasonable judgments made, by the Executive, Congress, or the Court.
I would push back on the need for a "paradigm" because as much as lawyers like rules and predictability, the judicial process is ultimately a matter of judgment. Discussion about the "factors" a court should consider is often just that, guidance to other courts about what may or may not be relevant. A decent phrasing of this that kind of puts it into a "paradigm" would be recent 2A cases suggesting courts should look to the "history and tradition." All that's really saying is to do your legal research and make a decision.
As conflicts between reasonable judgments, that's the judicial process. The supreme court can allow circuit splits to exist, or they can express their own opinion. Of course, the Executive is free to make reasonable judgments within their realm. They're free to not prosecute questionable cases, and they're also free to prosecute defendants on cases where the court ultimately disagrees (that the conduct was legal).
As conflicts between reasonable judgments, that's the judicial process. The supreme court can allow circuit splits to exist, or they can express their own opinion. Of course, the Executive is free to make reasonable judgments within their realm. They're free to not prosecute questionable cases, and they're also free to prosecute defendants on cases where the court ultimately disagrees (that the conduct was legal).
So that's clarifying, but I'm not sure how it's making an argument that "strict scrutiny" vs. "rational basis" isn't at the very least a good shorthand that captures the strongest available historical interpretation of the Court's varying powers of review.
I don't understand what you mean by varying powers of review.
SCOTUS doesn’t get to tell Congress they’re making the wrong tradeoff on regulating the length of fishing vessels in the North Atlantic—assuming there’s any possible rational basis for such a law.
They do get to tell Congress they’ve stepped over the line in regulating speech about vaccines on the Internet, at least without a rationale that survives a level of review commonly called “strict scrutiny”.
I took your original post to be arguing this distinction wasn’t well founded in the text of the Constitution or historical understanding of it.
They do get to tell Congress they’ve stepped over the line in regulating speech about vaccines on the Internet, at least without a rationale that survives a level of review commonly called “strict scrutiny”.
I took your original post to be arguing this distinction wasn’t well founded in the text of the Constitution or historical understanding of it.
Yeah, you understand and you’re right that the current rules accurately describe the current prevailing wisdom, but that’s kind of tautological.
Some of the weak spots are rational basis review being too deferential. Certainly a law is constitutional unless there is some claim to the contrary, but when it comes into conflict with individual rights, a judgment has to be made and that’s an inherently judicial task, not suited to deference.
Another weak spot is the commerce clause, because it is certainly legitimate evaluate whether the law falls within Congress’s legislative authority. Anyone who reads the enumerated powers can tell “essentially anything” would have been a lot easier write… and yet the founders enumerated specific limited areas.
It’s hard to predict exactly what they’ll say, but my best guess would be focusing more on this connection between the legislative authority and the means employed by the statute, balanced against the rights allegedly being impaired (without regard to whether those are fundamental / class based. If a law is squarely within legislative authority, then congress shouldn’t need a rational basis. Rather than saying it impairs a fundamental right, they could focus on the fact that regulation of speech is not strongly within the legislative authority. As a law ventures further from historical and transitional exercises, the basis for the law would have to get stronger.
Honestly, this isn’t a major change, but erroneous New Deal Era caselaw has corrupted the logic. Sure, in theory everything could be called interstate commerce, but regulating viewpoint based speech is a has a stronger impact on speech than on commerce. Meanwhile, regulating the length of merchant vessels falls a lot closer to regulating seagoing commerce than to speech. No need to apply different standards.
Some of the weak spots are rational basis review being too deferential. Certainly a law is constitutional unless there is some claim to the contrary, but when it comes into conflict with individual rights, a judgment has to be made and that’s an inherently judicial task, not suited to deference.
Another weak spot is the commerce clause, because it is certainly legitimate evaluate whether the law falls within Congress’s legislative authority. Anyone who reads the enumerated powers can tell “essentially anything” would have been a lot easier write… and yet the founders enumerated specific limited areas.
It’s hard to predict exactly what they’ll say, but my best guess would be focusing more on this connection between the legislative authority and the means employed by the statute, balanced against the rights allegedly being impaired (without regard to whether those are fundamental / class based. If a law is squarely within legislative authority, then congress shouldn’t need a rational basis. Rather than saying it impairs a fundamental right, they could focus on the fact that regulation of speech is not strongly within the legislative authority. As a law ventures further from historical and transitional exercises, the basis for the law would have to get stronger.
Honestly, this isn’t a major change, but erroneous New Deal Era caselaw has corrupted the logic. Sure, in theory everything could be called interstate commerce, but regulating viewpoint based speech is a has a stronger impact on speech than on commerce. Meanwhile, regulating the length of merchant vessels falls a lot closer to regulating seagoing commerce than to speech. No need to apply different standards.
Not knowing how it works: can the people filing lawsuits choose whatever court has judges with a history of cancelling regulations?
Overturning Chevron itself didn't allow for that, but the (less talked about but just as important) ruling in Corner Post did. The court ruled the default statute of limitations for an injury caused by a regulatory agency is six years from the time of first injury, instead of six years from the enactment of the policy (what it was originally). This means any interested party can create a new entity, fund it, and have it be injured by the policy they wish to challenge; and finally use it as the vehicle to sue the agency. Wherever this entity is created would then be where it'd have standing to sue, allowing for the shopping of a friendly judge.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/supreme-court-expands-tim...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/supreme-court-expands-tim...
Legal Eagle in his YouTube analysis on the matter said that corporations will absolutely be able to venue shop for favourable judges.
[deleted]
There is no defense of bureaucratic overreach.
It would be great to see the readers of this site step back a bit.
Consider the growth of the Administrative State, which amounted to a shift away from elected representatives crafting laws to having those representatives essentially vote on requirements documents.
Unelected bureaucrats then turn the legislation into regulations so that the operating system of the government can function.
But since its regulation and not legislation, it's Constitutional. If you squint.
The point is one of scalability. Whether one considers the Administrative State a great idea or not, it came about because it was needful.
So, all of the MAGA Conservatives can do victory laps, but if the basic requirement to keep the ship of state on an even keel goes unmet, then stand by for the blowback.
I'd like to see some genuine thought given to how to balance the requirements of modern life with the desire for accountability for decision-makers, which bureaucracy famously obviates.
For starters, consider Federalism (Washington DC only manages interstate and international, not individual).
A political architecture, like a software architecture, might be improved by such a layered approach, instead of the (substantially) Monolithic State of Washington D.C.
Consider the growth of the Administrative State, which amounted to a shift away from elected representatives crafting laws to having those representatives essentially vote on requirements documents.
Unelected bureaucrats then turn the legislation into regulations so that the operating system of the government can function.
But since its regulation and not legislation, it's Constitutional. If you squint.
The point is one of scalability. Whether one considers the Administrative State a great idea or not, it came about because it was needful.
So, all of the MAGA Conservatives can do victory laps, but if the basic requirement to keep the ship of state on an even keel goes unmet, then stand by for the blowback.
I'd like to see some genuine thought given to how to balance the requirements of modern life with the desire for accountability for decision-makers, which bureaucracy famously obviates.
For starters, consider Federalism (Washington DC only manages interstate and international, not individual).
A political architecture, like a software architecture, might be improved by such a layered approach, instead of the (substantially) Monolithic State of Washington D.C.
[deleted]
TL;DR;
Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine (which the SCOTUS did), the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes.
---
For example, now the FCC no longer has the power over topics like Net Neutrality ... that is now left up to the courts.
---
The historical stance on this was, agencies should have authority over ambiguous statutes because they are Subject Matter Experts in the space (you can't expect a judge to be a SME on every possible topic).
Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine (which the SCOTUS did), the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes.
---
For example, now the FCC no longer has the power over topics like Net Neutrality ... that is now left up to the courts.
---
The historical stance on this was, agencies should have authority over ambiguous statutes because they are Subject Matter Experts in the space (you can't expect a judge to be a SME on every possible topic).
Net Neutrality is actually a great example in this context, and it came up at oral argument.
If you take Chevron seriously, the fact of whether or not Congress in 1934 wrote a law that required modern ISPs to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act actually changed as the FCC ping-ponged between Republican and Democratic control over the past 10 years.
If you're a judge who thinks the law should carry forward consistently the same meaning it had when it was passed, difficult ambiguities and all, that's a pretty bad bug: Now the meaning of a law to the people of the United States isn't fixed at all, it can change (and change back) at the will of the President, without Congress amending it.
If you take Chevron seriously, the fact of whether or not Congress in 1934 wrote a law that required modern ISPs to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act actually changed as the FCC ping-ponged between Republican and Democratic control over the past 10 years.
If you're a judge who thinks the law should carry forward consistently the same meaning it had when it was passed, difficult ambiguities and all, that's a pretty bad bug: Now the meaning of a law to the people of the United States isn't fixed at all, it can change (and change back) at the will of the President, without Congress amending it.
Instead now the interpretation depends on the court that hears the case? And could change every time it is heard? With the current Supreme Court leaving stare decisis dead and buried it's the legal wild west.
I have to wonder which circuits will be most favorable to the people who want to overturn regulation. Will it be East Texas again? Companies will have a lot of leeway to forum shop when looking to deregulate themselves.
I have to wonder which circuits will be most favorable to the people who want to overturn regulation. Will it be East Texas again? Companies will have a lot of leeway to forum shop when looking to deregulate themselves.
Yes, like any other statutory interpretation case, which judges hear all the time in a thousand different contexts of state and federal law, some highly technical.
A good example from a few terms ago is Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on what is or is not a money order:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf
The oral argument was quite entertaining, IIRC:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22O145
A good example from a few terms ago is Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on what is or is not a money order:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf
The oral argument was quite entertaining, IIRC:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22O145
Or stop passing vague, ambiguous, overly-general laws.
That sounds good, but doesn't work in practice.
New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous.
Take AI as an example. How many laws have been written over the past few decades that could not have predicted AI use cases or its application.
New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous.
Take AI as an example. How many laws have been written over the past few decades that could not have predicted AI use cases or its application.
Congress could create a committee charged with developing an AI policy. That committee can include subject matter experts, and can recommend clear specific regulations. They can then draft legislation that codifies that into law.
As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.
As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.
Here's a better example.
~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing).
Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice).
Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched.
New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles.
But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company".
This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded?
So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down".
When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing).
Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice).
Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched.
New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles.
But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company".
This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded?
So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down".
When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
> subject matter experts
That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
Versus the very same thing in regulatory agencies? Are we seriously acting like there isn't a constant revolving door between law enforcement, major regulatory agencies and the companies they interact with?
The CBO of established by Congress to be subject matter experts. It is the peer to the OMB in the executive branch. If Congress wanted an expert branch to study study technical topics I’m sure they could establish something similar.
This is what congress does by creating these agencies that up until now relied on Chevron rather than a drawn out process of creating specific laws (so years can go by with dangerous loopholes etc).
Yes, but in practice regulatory agencies can be fairly non-communicative with the companies that they regulate.
I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand.
If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.
I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand.
If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.
So make new laws or amend old ones? Isn't that what congress is ostensibly paid to do?
Thousands of highly detailed laws every year, which will still be out of date not not specific enough when they're enacted?
"No, our compound does not pollute the water."
"It's arsenic with an extra carbon molecule, making it more poisonous!"
"But it's not covered in the law, so it's not a pollutant."
"No, our compound does not pollute the water."
"It's arsenic with an extra carbon molecule, making it more poisonous!"
"But it's not covered in the law, so it's not a pollutant."
Are they not allowed to bring in the relevant agencies experts to help them write the laws?
I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point.
But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections.
Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people.
At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point.
But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections.
Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people.
At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
To clarify, this is a scope problem. 23 agencies each with thousands of regulations that apply to millions of companies, all up for question and challenge at the same time.
Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem.
And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges).
Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.
Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem.
And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges).
Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.
Congress isn’t capable of passing new laws in a timely manner. Telling them to do so will just lead to disappointment
The ACA (affordable care act) was pretty gargantuan because the healthcare system itself is gargantuan. Trying to address all the issues in all the facets of the law resulted in a multi-thousand page bill. It attempted to do what you ask for -- and the result was it was endlessly attacked for being huge, an example of how Washington is out of control.
The problem you complain has been there since the very start, in our constitution. There has been 250 years of court cases trying to determine exactly what the boundary of those vague rules state.
The problem you complain has been there since the very start, in our constitution. There has been 250 years of court cases trying to determine exactly what the boundary of those vague rules state.
But ACA survived throughout a hostile Republican administration. Isn't that an example of taking the time to write a more explicit law make it more resilient to an administration change.
I don't think that's why it has survived.
The ACA is an example of the divergence between rhetoric and political reality. It is easy to step in front of a camera villainize "ObamaCare" to engage your voters. But if you actually repeal it then you get to explain to those voters at the next election why you reintroduced lifetime caps and preexisting conditions while premiums did not go down (in fact, they probably went up!). Politicians are unfailingly partisan, but they are even more reliably panderers. Can't be an effective partisan from the sidelines.
The ACA is an example of the divergence between rhetoric and political reality. It is easy to step in front of a camera villainize "ObamaCare" to engage your voters. But if you actually repeal it then you get to explain to those voters at the next election why you reintroduced lifetime caps and preexisting conditions while premiums did not go down (in fact, they probably went up!). Politicians are unfailingly partisan, but they are even more reliably panderers. Can't be an effective partisan from the sidelines.
Or we setup a framework for agencies to be able to decide on new products and chemicals without having to rely on the increasingly deadlocked congress to pass a new law for every little chemical or additive industry wants to add. That framework included tons of checks from both the judiciary and ultimately from Congress themselves who could overrule agencies any time they felt the agency exceeded the bounds of the authority given to them.
Even if we didn't have a near dysfunctional Congress there are so many small decisions on regulations it would take up most of their time passing them individually. No matter how you slice it there's a need for something like the delegation of powers to agencies to keep up with modern industry.
Even if we didn't have a near dysfunctional Congress there are so many small decisions on regulations it would take up most of their time passing them individually. No matter how you slice it there's a need for something like the delegation of powers to agencies to keep up with modern industry.
Even without Chevron, Congress can still explicitly delegate something like that to an agency.
We've yet to see what regulation looks like without Chevron. How specific does a delegation have to be will likely depend a lot on the court hearing the case. Is Bitcoin a security or something completely new that the SEC has no jurisdiction over because it doesn't fit cleanly into any definition written by Congress because it wasn't imagined the last time we managed to pass anything in this country? Can the EPA or FDA regulate a new chemical or is the mandate from Congress too broad to allow them to decide that the new chemical is dangerous to human health?
Even if they do write another power delegation law, it's not like the law can't be overturned by the courts if they want to keep their new power.
Do you really want people like Marjorie Taylor Green trying to write all of the technical details for cabbage sales or carboxy methyl cellulose production?
Language is always vague and ambiguous or it becomes highly technical and incomprehensible.
Not a coincidence that, following a takeover of the judiciary by the right wing, they now aggrandize the power of the Court.
The reactions are strange. The decision appears to have been the single biggest rollback of the parasitic state in modern times. It puts the people and the government on a more equal footing with respect to the law, which is something to celebrate. I will chalk it up to the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
One potential positive is that it may help foster actual cooperation between the parties when a new problem arises that really needs some solution not covered by existing law instead of just relying on the executive to fix things. Once you start cooperating on some things, it's much easier to cooperate on more difficult issues.
Most politicians are not extremists who would rather see the US become a failed state than cooperate with their political opponents. It would be like a (mentally healthy) married couple choosing homelessness because they disagree over what color the walls should be.
Most politicians are not extremists who would rather see the US become a failed state than cooperate with their political opponents. It would be like a (mentally healthy) married couple choosing homelessness because they disagree over what color the walls should be.
I'm really holding out that this is true. In a dream world, it'll up the ante to get people to vote in more reasonable ("quiet/silent majority" type) people willing to actually get stuff done.
One half is that the other team did it so it has to be bad.
The other half is that enlightened people that don't value democracy and think they represent the "greater good" want the power to circumvent such archaic processes like "passing laws".
The other half is that enlightened people that don't value democracy and think they represent the "greater good" want the power to circumvent such archaic processes like "passing laws".
[deleted]
Safe assumption.
[deleted]
[deleted]
lawls(2)
You mean the rug pull on 40 years of legal precedent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM
People have to stop looking for the moral high ground in dealing with domestic threats. Two impeachment processes were just filed today...
The US politics is so Bonkers... bag of popcorn ready =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM
People have to stop looking for the moral high ground in dealing with domestic threats. Two impeachment processes were just filed today...
The US politics is so Bonkers... bag of popcorn ready =3
Sounds to me like Loper Bright Enterprises was the little guy getting absolutely reamed by the government after NOAA out of nowhere decided to start charging them $700 per day per fishing vessel.
Chevron Deference would have continued but the government simply couldn't help themselves.
Chevron Deference would have continued but the government simply couldn't help themselves.
Loper Bright appears to be more narrow wrt to FERC
https://natlawreview.com/article/analysis-loper-brights-and-...
https://natlawreview.com/article/analysis-loper-brights-and-...
Yeah, this is just another in a long list of "this is why we can't have nice things". It's not really that different from the Bay Area deciding that they'll give sheriffs the right to decide who gets a concealed carry warrant and then one of those sheriffs deciding that she'd prefer getting paid to give them out.
It's funny because the supreme Court also provided an avenue for that to be done legally - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
Ha, I think she retired before she could be prosecuted or anything. Should have stuck it out!
So Sheriffs could take gratuities to deny ccw permits... Maybe a patreon for each denial.
And the decision itself was a rug pull from many years of legal precedent too. Roe v Wade also did exactly just that. I presume you dislike those two decisions just as much as you dislike this one? Surely any decision that creates a new precedent will inherently be a rug pull?
> Surely any decision that creates a new precedent will inherently be a rug pull?
Unless the "new precedent" is arbitrary random daily policy common in despotic regimes like Russia. i.e. one has no clue what will happen when they step outside everyday.
In general, legal consensus is supposed to evolve from _many_ trials with civilians deciding on what legislated policy is appropriate to enforce for its residents.
Giving 40 years of people that sat through jury duty in 8000 trials a troll... is not what justice, accountability, and due process is supposed to look like.
It is not my opinion that matters... but I do like popcorn nom nom nom =3
Unless the "new precedent" is arbitrary random daily policy common in despotic regimes like Russia. i.e. one has no clue what will happen when they step outside everyday.
In general, legal consensus is supposed to evolve from _many_ trials with civilians deciding on what legislated policy is appropriate to enforce for its residents.
Giving 40 years of people that sat through jury duty in 8000 trials a troll... is not what justice, accountability, and due process is supposed to look like.
It is not my opinion that matters... but I do like popcorn nom nom nom =3
Source: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... - second point above the fold.
Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.