It doesn't really remove the discretion within the executive branch agencies. They still have to do some level of interpretation of what Congress really wanted.
Removal of Chevron effectively means a judge then gets to second-guess that interpretation. Previously, they were supposed to defer to the SMEs in the executive.
The same way agency did before Chevron. Chevron has only existed since 1984. Most of our core food, drug, air, etc regulations all predate it. They just have to use the authority explicitly granted to them rather then making shit up.
Congress currently has, and always has had, control of regulatory agencies. There are many ways this works. In many cases, congresses created the agencies by legislation so they can simply change the powers of the agency. If they don’t like a regulation, they can pass a law overriding the regulation. If they didn’t like an agency using chevron a certain way, they can, again, pass a law. They can also withhold monies from the agencies or restrict the use of those monies.
I get that passing laws is hard but that is one of the reasons to have agencies!
This is the best question here. The FTC can still make and enforce regulations. But the regulatees can now take those enforecements to federal judges who may modify or vacate the enforcement action, or even the regulation itself.
The loss of chevron does not end regulation. It creates a morass of inconsistent and inexpert judicial inturpretations. It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
Probably one of the best in decades... Seriously how did we get to the point that hacker news of all places is fondly dreaming of a near presidential dictatorship where rule making doesn't even need the legislative branch.
I definitely see it as the worst. We only have three branches of government, which one is best suited to handle minor regulation? There are three possible answers and none have the expertise to be competent. The argument for delegating areas of expertise made itself decades ago.
Its cute how people give Republicans credit for anything, really.
Its not like the agencies could just do what they want prior - they generally had to follow the policies with freedom to interpret vague laws, and its up to congress to pass more clarifying laws.
The Chevron doctrine overruling wasn't taking power away from the executive branch, it was a backup plan if Democrats won, the Supreme Court can have power against the incoming administration. It should be pretty evident that the Republican Justices are solely in MAGA territory, considering Trump vs US ruling.
> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades
That's saying a lot considering that the presidential immunity decision is going to create the same kind of uncertainty surrounding presidential conduct which is likely not going to be resolved for decades.
Chevron eliminated discretion regarding how an agency interprets what powers it has been given if the law is unclear about such things.
It does not eliminate the ability to make and enforce rules if those powers/rules are clearly within the scope of the law.
I have no idea about this FTC decision on this second point but agency lawyers tend to be pretty careful about such things.
It doesn't really remove the discretion within the executive branch agencies. They still have to do some level of interpretation of what Congress really wanted.
Removal of Chevron effectively means a judge then gets to second-guess that interpretation. Previously, they were supposed to defer to the SMEs in the executive.
Thankfully our court system isn’t already extremely overburdened, so this is going to go really well.
The same way agency did before Chevron. Chevron has only existed since 1984. Most of our core food, drug, air, etc regulations all predate it. They just have to use the authority explicitly granted to them rather then making shit up.
Ah to live in a time that congress could make laws… swoon
Congress currently has, and always has had, control of regulatory agencies. There are many ways this works. In many cases, congresses created the agencies by legislation so they can simply change the powers of the agency. If they don’t like a regulation, they can pass a law overriding the regulation. If they didn’t like an agency using chevron a certain way, they can, again, pass a law. They can also withhold monies from the agencies or restrict the use of those monies.
I get that passing laws is hard but that is one of the reasons to have agencies!
Chevron was not carte blanche either.
This is the best question here. The FTC can still make and enforce regulations. But the regulatees can now take those enforecements to federal judges who may modify or vacate the enforcement action, or even the regulation itself.
The loss of chevron does not end regulation. It creates a morass of inconsistent and inexpert judicial inturpretations. It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
Probably one of the best in decades... Seriously how did we get to the point that hacker news of all places is fondly dreaming of a near presidential dictatorship where rule making doesn't even need the legislative branch.
I definitely see it as the worst. We only have three branches of government, which one is best suited to handle minor regulation? There are three possible answers and none have the expertise to be competent. The argument for delegating areas of expertise made itself decades ago.
2 replies →
Its cute how people give Republicans credit for anything, really.
Its not like the agencies could just do what they want prior - they generally had to follow the policies with freedom to interpret vague laws, and its up to congress to pass more clarifying laws.
The Chevron doctrine overruling wasn't taking power away from the executive branch, it was a backup plan if Democrats won, the Supreme Court can have power against the incoming administration. It should be pretty evident that the Republican Justices are solely in MAGA territory, considering Trump vs US ruling.
> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades
That's saying a lot considering that the presidential immunity decision is going to create the same kind of uncertainty surrounding presidential conduct which is likely not going to be resolved for decades.
See also Citizens United.
1 reply →
"can now take" isn't really accurate.
You could always appeal the rulings from federal agencies in court and that's how we lost chevron [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
Even worse than near-blanket immunity for the President? I guess we'll find out in January!
But yeah, the inconsistent rulings from the bench will be a total dumpster fire.
Why do you think there will be inconsistent rulings? Wouldn't any such case be accompanied by subject matter expert opinions and testimony?
18 replies →
[dead]
we'll see when it gets challenged