4 ms·

Would I be right to assume this means more regulatory lawsuits not fewer?

phone8675309 2y ago
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.
- aredox 2y ago
  Exactly not: there is now even more need for minute regulations, drafted by lobbyists and hapless politicians.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  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.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > 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.
- jerf 2y ago
  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.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    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
- impalallama 2y ago
  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-ftcs-non-compete-ban-marks-narrow-key-victory-opponents/id=178700/# https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - phone8675309 2y ago
      > 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.
- jandrese 2y ago
  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.
jerf 2y ago
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.
azemetre 2y ago
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.
- throwup238 2y ago
  I predict open warfare between the Ninth and Fifth Circuit.
- edgyquant 2y ago
  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.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Yep, just two brothers named Koch.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    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.
  - affinepplan 2y ago
    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
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
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 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).
benreesman 2y ago
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.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
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.
- ameister14 2y ago
  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.

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.

aredox 2y ago
Exactly not: there is now even more need for minute regulations, drafted by lobbyists and hapless politicians.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
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.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > 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.
jerf 2y ago
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.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  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
impalallama 2y ago
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-ftcs-non-compete-ban-marks-narrow-key-victory-opponents/id=178700/# https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - phone8675309 2y ago
    > 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.
jandrese 2y ago
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.

jerf 2y ago

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.

azemetre 2y ago

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.

throwup238 2y ago
I predict open warfare between the Ninth and Fifth Circuit.
edgyquant 2y ago
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.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Yep, just two brothers named Koch.
- azemetre 2y ago
  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.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  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

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

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 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).

benreesman 2y ago

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.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

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.

ameister14 2y ago
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.