4 ms·

How can the FTC make any enforceable rules now that Chevron is gone?

josefritzishere 2y ago
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.
- freejazz 2y ago
  > 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.
  - philjohn 2y ago
    See also Citizens United.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Not of this decade and didn't result in years of litigation to figure out what the 'precedent' meant.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  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.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    Why do you think there will be inconsistent rulings? Wouldn't any such case be accompanied by subject matter expert opinions and testimony?
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      Judges aren't perfect and they aren't completely apolitical. If they were, we wouldn't need appeals courts and SCOTUS. With Chevron in place, that imperfection was somewhat managed by deferring to the experts in the executive branch who were tasked with implementing the rules provided by Congress. Without Chevron, a non-expert judge has to decide whose experts they believe. Additionally, the removal of Chevron opens to doors to a massive number of cases that likely wouldn't be filed under Chevron. So, we're also adding caseload to an already overburdened justice system.
      - ranger_danger 2y ago
        But experts aren't perfect either... I'm not sure how good of an argument this is if it just boils down to trusting a different set of experts and believing one is somehow inherently better than another? Or maybe I misunderstand.
        wrs 2y ago
        The whole point of having a regulatory agency is that you hire full-time experts in the field and rely on them to build a coherent and stable system of rules and enforcement. As one of the regulated parties, this gives you some solid ground to stand on. If this can all be second-guessed in court, then it becomes more of a crap shoot based on a series of judges’ rapport with the selected experts du jour, who are selected primarily based on the suitability of their opinion, rather than their expertise.
        ranger_danger 2y ago
        What says the full-time experts won't have the "wrong" opinions?
- meta_x_ai 2y ago
  [dead]
- lesuorac 2y ago
  "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._Raimondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  > 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.
  - josefritzishere 2y ago
    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.
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      Your argument is completely non nonsensical... Congress is still free to delegate as much or as little as it wants to the Executive. The only thing the removal of Chevron did was prevent agencies from claiming additional authority over things Congress gave them no role in.
      - mschoch 2y ago
        I think you meant not non non non non non nonsensical
  - ActorNightly 2y 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.
dpierce9 2y ago
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.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  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.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Thankfully our court system isn’t already extremely overburdened, so this is going to go really well.
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
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.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Ah to live in a time that congress could make laws… swoon
  - dpierce9 2y ago
    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.
whimsicalism 2y ago
we'll see when it gets challenged

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.

freejazz 2y ago
> 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.
- philjohn 2y ago
  See also Citizens United.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Not of this decade and didn't result in years of litigation to figure out what the 'precedent' meant.
alistairSH 2y ago
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.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Why do you think there will be inconsistent rulings? Wouldn't any such case be accompanied by subject matter expert opinions and testimony?
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Judges aren't perfect and they aren't completely apolitical. If they were, we wouldn't need appeals courts and SCOTUS. With Chevron in place, that imperfection was somewhat managed by deferring to the experts in the executive branch who were tasked with implementing the rules provided by Congress. Without Chevron, a non-expert judge has to decide whose experts they believe. Additionally, the removal of Chevron opens to doors to a massive number of cases that likely wouldn't be filed under Chevron. So, we're also adding caseload to an already overburdened justice system.
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      But experts aren't perfect either... I'm not sure how good of an argument this is if it just boils down to trusting a different set of experts and believing one is somehow inherently better than another? Or maybe I misunderstand.
      - wrs 2y ago
        The whole point of having a regulatory agency is that you hire full-time experts in the field and rely on them to build a coherent and stable system of rules and enforcement. As one of the regulated parties, this gives you some solid ground to stand on. If this can all be second-guessed in court, then it becomes more of a crap shoot based on a series of judges’ rapport with the selected experts du jour, who are selected primarily based on the suitability of their opinion, rather than their expertise.
        ranger_danger 2y ago
        What says the full-time experts won't have the "wrong" opinions?
meta_x_ai 2y ago
[dead]
lesuorac 2y ago
"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._Raimondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> 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.
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  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.
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    Your argument is completely non nonsensical... Congress is still free to delegate as much or as little as it wants to the Executive. The only thing the removal of Chevron did was prevent agencies from claiming additional authority over things Congress gave them no role in.
    - mschoch 2y ago
      I think you meant not non non non non non nonsensical
- ActorNightly 2y 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.

dpierce9 2y ago

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.

alistairSH 2y ago
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.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Thankfully our court system isn’t already extremely overburdened, so this is going to go really well.

tick_tock_tick 2y ago

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.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Ah to live in a time that congress could make laws… swoon
- dpierce9 2y ago
  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.

whimsicalism 2y ago

we'll see when it gets challenged