181
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life.

The justices heard two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.

Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.

...

The three liberal justices warned during Wednesday’s pair of arguments that overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions that they argue are better left for experts employed by federal agencies.

“I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, adding later: “I’m worried about the courts becoming über legislators.”

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 70 points 9 months ago

Literally, the point of Chevron was that we cannot expect legislators to be as knowledgeable as the experts working at specific agencies. So allow the agencies leeway to act within the scope of the grant authorized by Congress. If Congress sees an overstep, then they can rein in that authority. I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument on why this should be disturbed.

Although, I know it will be overturned and well-reasoned won't be part of the decision.

[-] rabiddolphin@lemmy.world 44 points 9 months ago
[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

They've aleady won. Leave, if you can.

[-] Cogency@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Really? They haven't won anything. They've made progress, they are advancing a genocide against trans people like me and I'm not even this doomery, but the resistance to any destruction of this country will grind it to a hault again and again. They havent won the popular vote in this country in decades.

Get out and vote. Organize and resist. BLM was the biggest civil rights movement in the world. Covid shut this place down. Resistence is as easy as organizing a stay at home day.

And oh look the unions are already planning it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/04/business/uaw-next-auto-strike/index.html

[-] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

hear hear.

stay strong, proud of you!

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Seriously, you should get out, while you still can. The writing is on the wall. Believe it.

[-] Cogency@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Writing is on the wall for the entire world. What the writing says and where we go with it is still up to us. I'm going to resist and persist.

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I hear you. I truly hope I'm wrong. Best of luck.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago

Ugh, this is one I’ve been dreading this case for a while. Overturning the Chevron doctrine gives way too much power to activist judges.

[-] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 26 points 9 months ago

Supreme Court is sending us back to the previous century

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

More specifically, the Republican Party is.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

it's what the "conservative" judges are getting paid for

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

The arguments were infuriating. They seemed to forget there are 2 parts to Chevron deference, the first being to see rather or not the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. They seem to think the government can force through some pained stretch of the law when they cannot.

This will literally lead to the opposite, with people arguing outright unreasonable interpretations while claiming ambiguity. And the Republicans-packed judiciary will go right along with it. This is purely about making sure any liberal policy goal can be blocked.

This case should be over with step 1. Is it reasonable that fishermen have to pay 20% of the haul for their monitors? No. Heck, I think, as the program is suspended anyway, the case is moot for the done being and should be dismissed for lack of standing.

The original case was about rather a stationery source of pollution under the Clean Air Act is a whole complex (as the Regan EPA chose to interpret), or individual sources within the complex (as the Carter EPA previously enforced). Both are frankly reasonable, but I’m sure we’ll get some Republican judges ruling that since the Earth revolves around the sun, there is no such thing as a stationary pollution source.

[-] kreiger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

rather

whether

this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
181 points (98.9% liked)

News

23310 readers
3545 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS