3 ms·

Some folks were predicting this: > It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts sh

Some folks were predicting this: > It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it. * https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d... Some of the back and forth during the trial: > Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kagan. She doubted whether there can be a “best” interpretation of a law when the justices “routinely disagree” about a law’s meaning. The real question, she said, is who makes the choice about what an ambiguous law means. And if the court needs a “tie-breaker,” she continued, why shouldn’t it defer to the agency, with its expertise? > Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posited that the Chevron doctrine serves an important purpose. Under Chevron, she suggested, Congress gives federal agencies the power to make policy choices – such as filling gaps or defining terms in the statute. But if Chevron is overturned and agencies no longer have that power, she predicted, then courts will have to make those kinds of policy decisions. > But Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw Chevron’s deference to agencies differently. Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. * Ibid. See also perhaps: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... Generally: it seems that the USSC has been more been willing to throw out precedent and (not so?) settled law. The USSC is about to go on 'summer break', and so is releasing quite a few rulings all at once in a short time frame; a running tally seems to be available at: * https://www.scotusblog.com/author/scotusblog/ https://www.scotusblog.com/author/scotusblog/ Some seem to think this is a bit of a 'news dump' and 'DoS of attention': * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-june-docket-disaster-alito-roberts.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-ju... * https://www.msnbc.com/alex-wagner-tonight/watch/-news-dump-from-hell-supreme-court-appears-eager-to-hide-controversy-in-flood-of-major-rulings-212474437754 https://www.msnbc.com/alex-wagner-tonight/watch/-news-dump-f... * https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/

no_wizard 2y ago
They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history. The other thing this ignores is judicial bias. One positive of the Chevron ruling is that a well scoped agency with a clear agenda and expertise was able to oversee their domain of expertise and enforce rules under the Chevron Doctrine, which means in a well functioning agency (e.g. generally the SEC, FTC) didn’t have to rely on lengthy and often partisan court trials. If you look at how we handle patents for instance, you have a good taste of what things going to look like going forward. It will completely hamstrung agencies and delay regulation enforcement for years if not decades. Unfortunately judges aren’t without bias and partisanship and this will reflect in the venues that get used for these hearings, like how most patent cases end up in a small Texas court due to how favorable that court is to patent holders. This is going to be a mess. I don’t foresee judges deferring to agencies to speed up judicial review. I see courts becoming an even bigger partisan battle ground than they already are.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history. Than any court period. No supreme Court has been this bold in overturning precedent. Before this court, the last time that happened was brown v board of education.
jjk166 2y ago
> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...
- failuser 2y ago
  I can’t help but to read this as “we need a life-long dictator so we will not have to deal with the results of the elections”

no_wizard 2y ago

They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history. The other thing this ignores is judicial bias. One positive of the Chevron ruling is that a well scoped agency with a clear agenda and expertise was able to oversee their domain of expertise and enforce rules under the Chevron Doctrine, which means in a well functioning agency (e.g. generally the SEC, FTC) didn’t have to rely on lengthy and often partisan court trials. If you look at how we handle patents for instance, you have a good taste of what things going to look like going forward. It will completely hamstrung agencies and delay regulation enforcement for years if not decades. Unfortunately judges aren’t without bias and partisanship and this will reflect in the venues that get used for these hearings, like how most patent cases end up in a small Texas court due to how favorable that court is to patent holders. This is going to be a mess. I don’t foresee judges deferring to agencies to speed up judicial review. I see courts becoming an even bigger partisan battle ground than they already are.

cogman10 2y ago
> They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history. Than any court period. No supreme Court has been this bold in overturning precedent. Before this court, the last time that happened was brown v board of education.

jjk166 2y ago

> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...

failuser 2y ago
I can’t help but to read this as “we need a life-long dictator so we will not have to deal with the results of the elections”