The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision

Well that ignores Stare Decises which is a radical departure.

In addition even Roberts writes about how it removes the power from the executive branch. It is fundamental change.

I'm curious why you are in favor of these radical departures in the checks and balances but are seemingly bothered by what you perceive as radical changes within the Democratic party. And I ask, not to make a point, but I'm seriously curious. You don't have elaborate if you don't wish.

I will add that one of the court decisions I disagree with most is the whole corporations are people with regards to money in politics. I feel it's been bad for the nation and governance. I think with those involved and this decision it makes the problem worse.

But the strange thing to me is that it will go both ways. Judges are different and will continue to be different.

 

no, it doesn’t, that’s the entire point of Gorsuch’s concurrence

yes, but only power the USSC had granted the executive in Chevron itself. Robert’s explains this decision simply returns the power to where it had resided for the previous 180 years since Marbury

disagree that these are radical changes; Chevron proved unworkable for 40 years and the Chief clearly explains why the Court can and should correct its mistakes. It also is completely in contradiction with the APA which has been the law of the land since Congress passed it in 1946. To me that’s the biggest issue. It’s late, I can come back with more tomorrow.

 

I guess we disagree about Gorsuch. But the original decision was 6-0. It wasnt debatable and the court has previously pushed challenges to Chevron aside. Also I found Gorsuch's opinion unclear and weak. He mentioned about if a court's decision is wrong then it is wrong and should be overturned. Yet many feel this decision is wrong so he weakens his own decision. Also, that premise does ignore Stare Decisis even though he made some comment about being bound to inter it.

The fact that it ignores the precedent of the last 40 years is radical, and the fact until the Chevron decision, it was different, doesn't make it less radical. Chevron wasn't overturning previous supreme court decisions.

It is a radical decision that this court is just granting themselves with more power. They are taking more power for themselves and other judges.

To illustrate how unwise this is and how unqualified justices and judges might be, I beleive it was Gorsuch who confused regulating nitrogen oxide with nitrous oxide (laughing gas). That isn't a knock on Gorsuch not knowing the difference between the gasses, because he shouldn't have to know the difference. That is the whole point. He voted to give himself power to determine regulation over something about which he is ignorant. I will await any further thoughts you wish to share.

 

My biggest takeaway from this decision is that it allows big corporations with the resources or backing to challenge a governmental authority if only to sandbag delays in enforcement through litigation. So yes, it would never get as far as Chevron in most cases. This is a money hack if some bureaucrat got too uppity.

Some recent Federal rulings have shied away from Chevron though maybe that's the chilling influence of a Roberts court potentially swatting down a well moneyed appeal down like Mt. Mutombo.

Overturning the ruling itself could be chilling for agencies relying on half century plus statues with zero cover fire from Congress. Like they under bargain in order to look like they're enforcing The Things without actually being meaningful at their jobs.

In an age where USDA, FDA, SEC and many other agencies are regulatory captured by the same companies they were designed to oversee, it seems like this is another step down for any bureaucrat who would want to do their mandate under a favorable admin.

With this decision, I wouldn't be surprised if companies fight every money sucking decision tooth and nail if only to secure an injunction and sandbag with hopes of Their Guy winning in September.

**** these guys and why am I paying for their extra court cases? There should be a law where the loser pays the court system all administrative costs. They have their sleezy money up The Beast's every orifice. Might as well make them work for it

 

well, again I am going to disagree with you here. Roberts notes that the Court was experiencing difficulties with Chevron within five years of its issuance. The Court itself repeatedly faced cases that forced it to realize there was no single best interpretation to act as "precedent." Agencies exploited the ad hoc authority that Chevron afforded them; Roberts writes:

​

As several commentators since Thursday have noted, an electorate facing newly increased odds of a second Donald Trump administration ought to be glad that one of the things that would give Trump power is no longer available to him. On this forum we have a "Project 25" thread that makes it sound like it will lead to the end of the world; this decision removes some (not all, obviously) of the ability of the executive branch to steer policies and regulations any way they like every four years. That policy see-saw is chaotic and harmful to the public--certainly not the unalloyed good that pro-regulation progressives think it is.

just going to disagree with you here, other than to say, that is how the Supreme Court works, is it not? the ultimate arbiter of the law. But that does not mean the Court is "grabbing power for itself." I think that is just nonsense.

I just don't think the nitrogen oxides gaffe is the big deal Democrats are trying to make it out to be. It signifies nothing more than (admittedly) an embarrassing clerical error.

 

I read a bit more about the $700 per day fee since it seems unfair. The fishermen were reimbursed for it. Should have took my own advice - ignore tweets.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.

The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.

 

here is one such commentary:

https://reason.com/2024/06/28/liber...ould-learn-to-love-limits-on-executive-power/

Liberals in Biden Panic Mode Should Learn To Love Limits on Executive Power
The Supreme Court's recent rulings limiting the powers of the administrative state are a blessing for liberals who might not control the White House for much longer.
CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI | 6.28.2024 5:00 PM

It's been a tough couple of days for America's liberals.

On Thursday, they had to watch President Joe Biden give a historically bad debate performance that confirmed for most people watching that he lacks the stamina to be president for another four years.

The liberal commentariat is now officially in panic mode, with effectively no one defending the president's performance, and many former stalwart Biden supporters explicitly urging him to drop out of the race so that someone, anyone, capable of defeating former President Donald Trump can take the helm.

Then today, the U.S. Supreme Court jointly decided two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, that ended the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference—the judicial rule that required courts to largely defer to executive agencies' own judgment on the legality of their regulations.

The always hysterical Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's legal writer, declared the decision a "major blow to the 'administrative state'" and one that "constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary."

Stern leveled a similar assessment of the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, in which the court ruled that people being prosecuted by administrative agencies for civil violations were entitled to a jury trial.

He's hardly alone in despairing. The liberal legal commentariat is positively apoplecticat the new limits that the federal bureaucracy will now have to put up with.

Individually, these separate freakouts might make sense; Democrats don't want a Democrat to lose a presidential election. Liberal big-government supporters don't want additional restrictions on the power of federal regulators to set sweeping national policy.

Taken together, there's a frustrating incoherence to these twin panics. Liberals are incensed that an executive branch soon to be controlled by Donald Trump will have less ability to unilaterally set policy.

Given the fears of what a second Donald Trump administration will mean for liberal political priorities, one would think that the Supreme Court's rulings limiting executive power should be viewed as a good thing amongst America's liberals.

Surely, they should think it a good thing that Trump's executive agencies will face more scrutiny from the courts when enacting regulations not obviously authorized in statutes passed by Congress. Likewise, Trump haters should seemingly think it a good thing that people charged by independent agencies whose personnel Trump will appoint get the benefit of jury trials.

This should have been the liberal takeaway from the first Trump administration, but it largely wasn't.

Instead, Democrats went all in on the idea that Trump was an illegitimate president. All they needed to do was organize harder, vote harder, and be more radical until they finally again controlled the White House.

In office, Biden has been willing to stretch his executive power even further by forgiving student loans, prolonging eviction moratoriums, and mandating vaccines for private-sector workers, all without so much as a vote in Congress.

With the reality sinking in that Biden might not be president for much longer, this is looking like a bad strategy.

Libertarians have an easy time accepting limits on executive power. We're never in charge of the federal government, and we don't want it to do much anyway. The rest of the ideological spectrum should embrace the wisdom of this attitude as well, even if they desire a much more active federal government.

Policy wins resulting from unilateral executive action can be just as easily undone by executive action. The more power the president has, the more concerning it becomes when the president is someone you consider to be dangerous, or even unhinged.

All the more reason to limit the powers of the president, even if that means working through Congress and the states to get one's favored policies enacted.

The cases coming out of the Supreme Court will put hard limits on liberals' ability to implement their policy vision through executive agencies. They will also put hard limits on Donald Trump doing the same.

Anyone who wants Biden to win, and watched last night's debate, should see the silver lining there.


​

 

this set of claims is somewhat misleading, or mistaken.

here is an excellent, short summary of the case in case folks don't care to read the entire opinion

 

I am going to defer to the new found experts who have not heard of Chevron before last week, but.

If I understand this, regulator oversight was granted to agencies in charge for fringe cases however, a tool wasn't provided to dispute or challenge any of these agencies decisions. These practices then lead to alleged unfair or targeted actions.

How often is this occurring? Is the family with the fishing practice a common story or a fringe case? If its common, then obviously the SCOTUS ruling was fair. If its a fringe case, then why doesn't it matter either way?

 

This ruling will affect more than just the next administration no matter which one that is.

The mix up about Nitrus oxide gas wouldn't and shouldn't be a big deal at all. But now that the court will be the final day in determining the regulation it is a big deal and just shows one of the many problems with leaving the court in charge of subjects they shouldn't be required to understand.

Before the ruling even takes effect, the court already showed a lack of sufficient expertise and knowledge. The ironic part is that it came from a judge ruling the courts should have the authority.

 

again, the Loper Bright ruling is not about the courts encroaching on genuine agency technical and scientific expertise. Loper Bright is about the judicial retaining the responsibility to determine what the law is, when the law is unclear.

 

The effect is that will be making decisions about the scientific expertise. They will have the final say in matters of regulation and safety but won't have the background to properly judge. Further more tipping the balance of the three branches scale and annexing more power for themselves is problematic.

 

I disagree with the bolded

 

one more thing: this concern for "annexing more power for themselves" is a misreading of the Constitutional question involved in the Chevron/Loper Bright et al legal universe. The Congress had ducked ITS constitutional responsibilities by annexing the law-making power to the regulatory agencies, and the Court had annexed ITS judicial responsibilities to the regulatory state. Loper Bright simply restores the balance between the three branches to a position that's closer to where it ought to be, constitutionally.

This was the main topic of Thomas's concurrence, although Roberts certainly devotes some attention to the issue as well.

 

Why? Previously the courts would accept the executive branch's interpretation. Now they've decided their own interpretation will carry the most weight.

Again it is tough to get my reasoning across across on text format. I am not trying to convince you to change and I'm sure you're aware of it. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning so I can better understand the opposing point of view.

I just wanted to understand why you disagree. It's also fine if you feel it's something we've covered or aren't interested. Either way, thanks for taking the time to earnestly discuss the issue and case.

::EDIT:: I just saw your post above. Thank you

 

no, that's the unworkable part. The courts came up with a bewildering array of responses in light of Chevron and allowed a bewildering array of responses to stand in deference to agencies a la Chevron. It was a completely unworkable and chaotic set of circumstances.

no, I'm completely happy to keep at it--genuine dialogue is rare and it's something I enjoy. All too often here partisans jump straight to name-calling, so I basically ignore those folks. I see that you disagree, and are explaining why, and that's great. Your thinking on the issue maps perfectly along the lines of those who feel Roberts has made a mistake here. I do not think that. I truly believe the administrative and regulatory state has been granted/allowed FAR too much power with little or no legal recourse available to private citizens. I believe government is too big, and I believe federal government overreach is one of the biggest problems facing the United States today. I lean libertarian and consider myself a "classical liberal": that implies maximum freedom for the individual and severe constraints on government interference with private citizens' lives. Classic John Locke kind of liberalism. The modern administrative and regulatory state stands in direct opposition to those classic liberal ideals. The modern administrative and regulatory state is precisely what is "authoritarian" about modern government today.

 

oops!! our responses to each other crossed in the stream. happy to keep it going, it makes me think more carefully about the decision and the opinion. I have to confess that since I retired I do not read Sup. Ct. decisions as frequently or as carefully as I used to do. This is a particularly interesting decision for me, and I have had an interest in the APA since taking my first administrative law class some forty years ago. I am no expert but I find I have retained a fair amount of that course in my noggin despite now being a dipshit moron

 

Again, not trying to convince you, but rather explain my disagreement.

No matter how congress tries there will always be some amount of ambiguity in how to interpret legislation. Both sides of any legislation will find some possibly questionable loopholes to try and exploit.

I do agree that lawmakers sometimes purposefully leave the language vague so as to give an umbrella for people or groups to do things that are objectionable (Florida's Don't say gay bill as one examole).

My own speculation is that lawmakers will do that and they will have help from big pharma, oil and gas companies, etc. in crafting the bills. The bills will be abused. Then they will come before courts which will likely overturn the vagueness and the laws will be amended and rewritten again.

When that happens there are some huge problems.

1. The process is inefficient and takes way to long get mostly correct.

2. Both sides depending on numbers in congress will be able to make vague overly regulatory or overly permissive legislation in order to execute their desired outcome or the desired outcome of their special interest donators.

3. No matter how specific the language is in a bill there will be legal professionals that can find unintended loopholes. They will all have a financial interest in doing so.

I admit ahead of time this part is mostly speculation but there have already been cases of big pharma and other groups writing the wording of legislation put forward by congressmen.

ADDENDUM: Previously if people were unhappy about the agencies interpretation they could vote out the executives and lawmakers for a change. Now once it's in place judges will be able to make a lasting ruling.

 

agreed, but the decision allows for and expects Skidmore deference to continue unchanged. Loper Bright does nothing to impact that--even Kagan acknowledges this fact if I'm not mistaken.

https://ballotpedia.org/Skidmore_deference#:~:text=Skidmore deference, developed in the,according to the agency's ability

I can't help that, and neither can the USSC. There will be times when legislatures are incompetent . . . surprise!! we here in New York State live that reality every moment of our waking lives.

that's not really the USSC's problem--and I realize that's one of the things Kagan's dissent worries about. So be it. Chevron was bad law (as was Roe v. Wade for that matter), and the Court is trying to improve upon bad law. Just because bad law is precedent and there is a tradition of stare decisis does not mean we are obligated to uphold bad law until the end of time. That would be silly. Again, Roberts's opinion is quite eloquent on the stare decisis issue.

no, I actually think that is what Chevron actually caused--look at the excerpt I posted above with the broadband rulings. This decision is consistent with other recent decisions trying to get the Congress to go back to doing its actual job of legislating. It is not the USSC's fault Congress spends 10% of its time law-making and the other 90% of its time fund-raising.

I think that is a rather different issue entirely from the one discussed in Roberts's opinion for the court. If Congress is dysfunctional and subservient to lobbyists' and corporate interests, then folks should be up in arms about Congress.