SCOTUS Strikes Down Chevron, and Other Rulings: Read Them For Yourself

Related Post Roulette

7 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    On the Twitters, Trumwill points out: MAYBE WE CAN HAVE FLAVORED VAPES AGAIN.

    Grape-poprock-flavored nicotine. We don’t need Trump to MAGA.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Intriguing to me that they heard argument (and found against the agencies) on this and Jarksey, but poofed the FDA case for lack-of-standing.

      Which, obviously the FDA case would have been a 9-0 slam, but hearing the argument would have been a strong statement that the Court considers the FDA’s authority legitimate, versus “well you can’t show this harmed you” (implying that someone who could show that might have a shot.)Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I saw this and felt appropriately sympathetic:

    Report

  3. Pat
    Ignored
    says:

    It is somewhat remarkable that SCOTUS, having caught the car on abortion, went ahead and caught another car.Report

  4. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    I took Administrative Law pre-Chevron. It was probably bubbling up in the lower courts at the time, but it wasn’t on the radar. When it came down a couple of years later, nobody thought it was a big deal.
    There were reasons for this. Courts are largely incompetent to parse out highly technical regulatory issues, and Congress can’t write statutes that cover everything that can come up with the level of detail needed to make that possible. Consequently, courts have always deferred to agency interpretations. (Before Chevron, there was something called Skidmore deference, which survives today and is broad and ill-defined enough to do a large percentage of the work that Chevron did.) That deference was somewhat wild-and-wooly and variable. Some judges, like Justice White, were Chevronists avant la lettre. Just how much deference other judges were prepared to show depended on things like the difficulty of the issue, the reputation of the agency (the SEC got more deference than the NLRB), and how big of a stretch from the statutory language the regulation was. Much like the way things were last week. Chevron was widely seen at the time as a modest tidying up of existing judicial practice using a handy, if not very result-driving, formula. In the medium to long run, Loper-Bright will, I predict, change how courts talk more than it will change what courts do. In the short run, some judges will run away with things and micromanage agency decisions largely when they don’t like what the agency does. Then there will be a case that will do to Loper-Bright what Rahimi seems to have done to Bruen and things will settle down.Report

    • Philip H in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      Congress can’t write statutes that cover everything that can come up with the level of detail needed to make that possible

      And yet this is what – the fifth or sixth time just this term that the Roberts Court has told a hamstrung Congress to do its job by writing things “more clearly.”Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *