3 ms·
Net Neutrality is actually a great example in this context, and it came up at oral argument. If you take Chevron seriously, the fact of whether or not Congress
by twoodfin 2y ago
Net Neutrality is actually a great example in this context, and it came up at oral argument.
If you take Chevron seriously, the fact of whether or not Congress in 1934 wrote a law that required modern ISPs to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act actually changed as the FCC ping-ponged between Republican and Democratic control over the past 10 years.
If you're a judge who thinks the law should carry forward consistently the same meaning it had when it was passed, difficult ambiguities and all, that's a pretty bad bug: Now the meaning of a law to the people of the United States isn't fixed at all, it can change (and change back) at the will of the President, without Congress amending it.
- jandrese 2y agoInstead now the interpretation depends on the court that hears the case? And could change every time it is heard? With the current Supreme Court leaving stare decisis dead and buried it's the legal wild west. I have to wonder which circuits will be most favorable to the people who want to overturn regulation. Will it be East Texas again? Companies will have a lot of leeway to forum shop when looking to deregulate themselves.
- twoodfin 2y agoYes, like any other statutory interpretation case, which judges hear all the time in a thousand different contexts of state and federal law, some highly technical. A good example from a few terms ago is Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on what is or is not a money order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf The oral argument was quite entertaining, IIRC: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22O145 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22O145