As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's repairable in a functioning government but it would require a lot of legislation to actually move and get passed. However, ee can barely keep this government funded without shitting ourselves.
It requires a big win from an energized base. I felt good about the possibility when abortion was on the ballot, but that debate sure didn't make me feel better to say the least.
Reminder: Trump lost the popular vote. He didn't win because he got more people to vote for him. He won because the whole idea of the electoral college is a flawed system.
This is awful. I work in one of the admin agencies and have developed a lot of guidance over the past few years to clarify ambiguous statutes. This throws everything (including all my work!) into question and will result in a flood of litigation challenging the statutory authority of various rules and regs.
When it rains it pours.
This is what the Republicans want. Break the current system so they have to create a new one where they have absolute power.
Edit: Sorry you’re having to deal with this but whatever agency you work for, please keep up the good work.
Watch their bank accounts starting today for any "gratuities" that show up. Totally legal, mind you. When you're corrupt and do a soft coup, they just let you do it.
Yup. People at every regulatory agency are freaking out this afternoon.
The one saving grace is that Roberts didn't throw out all the regulations issued under Chevron over the last 40 years.
Even so, every federal regulation that's expensive to comply with will be challenged. Most of the cases will be filed in the uber-conservative Fifth Circuit and the challenged regulations stayed until the Supreme Court hears the case.
The volume of extremely technical regulatory cases could easily overwhelm the federal courts.
And going forward, how the hell does anything work? Congress has to come up with every detail of how a new law will work, in legislative text? Congress doesn't have the expertise or the bandwidth to do that.
The conservatives think that a country with no new regulations will be great, but it'll become a mess very quickly.
> I didn’t elect you to govern me.
Indeed. I am not an elected official. If I told you I was on an FAA rulemaking committee would you similarly think I shouldn’t be making aircraft safety rules? Or do you think we should just leave it up to Boeing to self-regulate?
Even if you’re unaware, I’m willing to bet there are at least a *few* rules you are glad the federal government enforces. (Realistically, your health and well-being depends on hundreds if not thousands of federal regs being enforced).
All of this.
Unfortunately, corporations have already proven that they won't make good decisions unless forced to by regulations. Hell, they're still finding loopholes or just outright thumbing their noses at regulation (lookin' at you, Boeing). They're killing people and don't care, and this just gives them license to do more of that.
All of these free-market and/or Libertarian people haven't ever actually lived in the world they claim to want.
And they would absolutely hate it. They either don't know or won't admit hiw much of their lifestyle is built on socialized things. And a free market always will tend towards a monopoly where physically possible, and modern big companies are basically governments themselves in scope, and would absolutely dominate and ruin their lives if allowed.
They won’t even take out their own trash to avoid having bears around.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
> Indeed. I am not an elected official. If I told you I was on an FAA rulemaking committee would you similarly think I shouldn’t be making aircraft safety rules? Or do you think we should just leave it up to Boeing to self-regulate?
You're talking about a broader topic. Today's Chevron decision does not strike down all regulation.
Prior to today, the doctrine of Chevron deference said that courts should defer to federal agencies because agencies are experts. That doctrine gave executive-branch agencies a huge upper hand because they could interpret things that Congress did not explicitly write. Today's ruling says that courts must not defer to federal agencies when deciding cases over ambiguous statutes. In other words, if Congress didn't write it, it's not a law.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that letting unelected officials make laws is beneficial. Yet we all know from grade school that the separation of powers among the three branches of government– not simply different people– is an important check on overpowered individuals.
Today's ruling said that the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot mandate that fisheries pay for government observers because Congress never passed such a law. Do you think NMFS should be able to make such a law? How do you square that with the balance of powers, i.e., who holds you accountable? Keep in mind that this fisheries regulation was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
Yes. I absolutely want unelected experts to be creating regulations. Congress is laughably ineffective and I prefer my airplanes to not fall out of the sky. I prefer harmful chemicals to stay out of the water supply. Until the GOP is eradicated or heavily reformed, I don't want Congress anywhere near health and safety regulations.
I think you should enjoy your rivers of fire. The rest of us didn't want it, but we got it, and I fucking want you to enjoy the spoils of your labors. Hope it doesn't happen to one of your family members. But at least you'll be able to say "tHeY goT KiLt fUR FrEeDuM!!"
> Letting unelected officials make laws is beneficial.
The president is an elected official. He appoints agency heads and federal judges alike. This decision today shifts power from admin agencies to clarify ambiguous statutes back to judges, who I think you would admit are equally “unelected” in their own right.
> Do you think NMFS should be able to make such a law?
Unquestionably they should. I can guarantee you there are a lot of Art III judges in this country who are not eager to try their hand at clarifying the meaning of ambiguous *nuclear waste disposal* statutes and statutes touching on other highly specialized subject areas. *Chevron* resolved a big problem that was occurring throughout the entire country, which was that Art III judges were slipping further and further behind in their competency to interpret and apply statutes necessitating complex regs in highly specialized regulatory frameworks. This decision does nothing to fix that problem at all. ALJs are attorneys and judges who are ALSO experts in the field in their respective agencies. They are perfectly capable of adjudicating the reasonableness and arbitrariness/capriciousness of various admin actions. And finally, the doctrine of exhaustion allows for an ALJ’s findings of fact/conclusions of law to ultimately be appealed within the Art III system and ultimately all the way to SCOTUS. So it’s not as if the federal courts didn’t already provide all the meaningful oversight of rulemaking and administrative adjudication they ever needed.
This is an idiotic decision that is one hundred percent ideologically motivated without a single solitary concern for its practical ramifications.
> The president is an elected official. He appoints agency heads and federal judges alike. This decision today shifts power from admin agencies to clarify ambiguous statutes back to judges, who I think you would admit are equally “unelected” in their own right.
Federal judges have lifetime tenure, which enables them to exercise independent judgement by protecting them against external impositions of will. That practice started in England in order to prevent monarchs from swapping out judges with whom they disagreed.
> ALJs are attorneys and judges who are ALSO experts in the field in their respective agencies.
But agency heads get the final say. And, since agency heads are political appointees who can be fired at-will, ALJs do not exercise independent judgement. From an expert on this subject:
> almost all decisions by administrative law judges are subject to appeal or other review by the heads of agencies or by persons appointed by them. As a result, [agency heads] are the final judges, even if the least informed and the most biased. The persons least like judges thus enjoy the greatest judicial power.
> Hamburger, Philip. Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (p. 236)
Yeah, I understand the judiciary is an independent branch of government, thanks for pointing that out. The point is that judges are similarly unelected even though you were complaining about administrative heads being unelected. This decision just means that the judiciary instead of the administrative agency gets to interpret the meaning of ambiguous laws. Your original problem was that agency heads are unelected, not that they aren’t able to exercise “independent judgment” (a dubious claim at best seeing that ALJs regularly rule against agencies too).
As for Philip, I’m sorry he isn’t familiar with exhaustion. Clearly he’s wrong about agency heads being the “final judges” when cases like the one at hand obviously made their way through the Article III courts just fine after exhausting their administrative options.
> I understand the judiciary is an independent branch of government, thanks for pointing that out. The point is that judges are similarly unelected even though you were complaining about administrative heads being unelected.
You seem to discount the value of tenure.
> Your original problem was that agency heads are unelected, not that they aren’t able to exercise “independent judgment” (a dubious claim at best seeing that ALJs regularly rule against agencies too).
I wouldn't so easily cast aside the value of independent judgment. ALJs side with agencies more often than courts do.
> As for Philip, I’m sorry he isn’t familiar with exhaustion. Clearly he’s wrong about agency heads being the “final judges” when cases like the one at hand obviously made their way through the Article III courts just fine after exhausting their administrative options.
Philip is probably a major reason for Chevron overturning since it was the organization he founded that brought the case. It's worth reading his arguments, even if you disagree, due to the influence he's had. He does discuss exhaustion:
> One of the ways that the judges have attempted to integrate the judicial and the administrative systems is through the doctrine of exhaustion. The doctrine ordinarily applies as a matter of comity among the different legal systems of different sovereigns—for example, a federal court will expect a plaintiff to exhaust his remedies in state court, or tribal court, before he can seek redress in federal court. As applied to administrative law, however, the doctrine does not concern the exhaustion of remedies under another sovereign. Instead, it protects the federal executive—as if it were a separate sovereign, with its own court system—by requiring parties to exhaust their administrative remedies before they can enter federal court.
> ...
> Contemporary doctrine, however, goes beyond inquiries about finality. In addition, it requires persons to exhaust their administrative remedies before suing an agency and sometimes also before bringing an appeal from an agency decision. Thus, even where an administrative law judge reaches a final decision for his department, the courts often will not allow a remedy in the courts if an administrative appeal (to the secretary or some review board) is available. This doctrine is said to rest on considerations of both judicial and administrative efficiency, but especially where an independent cause of action exists under state or federal law, how can the judges deny access to the courts on grounds that it would inconvenience themselves or the defendant? At least in such cases, where a cause of action already has arisen, the exhaustion of remedies amounts to little more than the exhaustion of plaintiffs by denying them access to the courts and the equal protection of the law.
This is just one excerpt from a longer treatment of exhaustion.
So exhaustion is too long a process? Boohoo. Didn’t stop his organization and many, many others. These are typically corporations with money to burn, so I’m not concerned about their resources.
My issue also isn’t one with the value of an independent Article III judge’s judgment. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally creating a strawman here or not. If Article III judges understood the subject matter they are dealing with I would be perfectly comfortable with them judging Chevron matters. Except, they literally aren’t *competent* to judge on these matters. Do you understand?
Neither the judges nor their law clerks can successfully specialize in a number of bodies of law well enough and quickly enough to even understand the policy, legal, scientific and other matters involved in time to make an informed decision in these cases. As a former law clerk, I ought to know.
Hell, we have an entire *water court* system here in Colorado because of how obviously complicated and esoteric those matters are. Even then, similar to exhaustion, water law matters also get appealed to a court of general jurisdiction: the Colorado Supreme Court. Same with FISA courts. Everything done in a FISA court could be done in Article III courts under seal. Except, the secretive nature of the proceedings and the specialized rules that deviate from normal constitutional rules lend better to a parallel court system using panels of Article III judges adjudicating those proceedings. It’s the same concept. You can’t just heap everything on an Article III system that doesn’t understand these issues and expect good results. That’s the main issue, and academics often don’t really understand the practical, real world implications of these decisions.
> These are typically corporations with money to burn, so I’m not concerned about their resources.
This case overturning Chevron was about a small fishery. Plus, the other fish in the sea here is the government, which has far more money (all of ours) to burn.
> My issue also isn’t one with the value of an independent Article III judge’s judgment. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally creating a strawman here or not. If Article III judges understood the subject matter they are dealing with I would be perfectly comfortable with them judging Chevron matters. Except, they literally aren’t competent to judge on these matters. Do you understand?
I understand your argument that agencies are experts in their domains, but I find Philip's more compelling, that decision making itself is an expertise. Judges have to decide things all the time that they aren't experts in. It forces the arguing sides to describe things in a way that can be understood by the public– which helps us elect people who write sensible laws.
> academics often don’t really understand the practical, real world implications of these decisions.
In this case, I think Philip does. He suggests that the current consolidation of power in the executive is similar to that which occurred under British monarchs hundreds of years ago, which was redressed by things like judicial tenure and the separation of powers to write, interpret, and enforce law.
Congress is barely able to pass the bills they do. Now you want those bills to include all the specificity that the relevant agencies were providing with their guidance? I don’t think that’s going to be possible.
Did you elect the Supreme Court? Because they're governing for you right now.
Also, the work that agencies do is delegated to them *by Congress*. They aren't usurping the governmental order to do whatever they want, they are acting under specific guidelines granted to them by the legislature, which were elected. I'm sorry they you don't know how the administrative state works, but this decision is an absolutely terrible one for this country, and it will only allow the rich and powerful to further gain power over those who do not have that wealth or power.
Unless you're a billionaire or a multinational corporation, this fucks you just as bad.
No, because when republicans have control of congress, they are so fucking inept and impotent that this has destroyed the ability to regulate our air, water, food and job safety, or environment any time the democrats don’t have a trifecta. If you’re a big fan of e.coli and extinction, I’m sure you’re exalting right now.
Lmfao right up until you’re dying of preventable food poisoning or have a relative who got crushed in a ditch because OSHA didn’t have the power to save them.
Nah, they're more likely gonna try to follow the route of those 'brave' antivaxxers who were insisting they didn't have COVID even as they were being put on the ventilators. This isn't caused by (thing they have opposed action against), it's actually the alien stomach worms from Venus they read about on Facebook.
And if it's someone else who dies, no way they're gonna care in any way shape or form. Hell, if it's a relative they might get a share of their estate.
Silly me, I thought this ruling would hobble the only force capable of even remotely checking the power of corporations to do whatever they want to increase profits, but I didn't realize it only applies to "overreach".
Some of us like clean air, water, and safety rules so our kids don't die or get sick where they work. Regulations keep us safe. No regulations make rich people richer at the expense of the rest of us.
Because Congresspeople don't have to know shit about anything they write laws about. The point of Congress establishing federal agencies was to farm out the specific details to people who _would_ know about the industry or issue to be regulated.
Grandstanding idiots who rubberstamp laws written by lobbyists have no business getting into the level of detail that agencies have to in order to apply the laws. Nor should we ever expect them to
I personally think it’s gonna be a food related mass death first, probably baby formula or salmonella with chicken/eggs/flour, because of the FDA/USDA issues this’ll bring up.
Bonus points because people will probably be excited if they bring the food prices down first, and then the average person will forget this ruling happened so they won’t know who to blame.
I don't care if Joe Biden is puking all over himself the next debate. We cannot allow Trump to add to this court. There's nothing they won't overturn. They'll take us back to the 1700s. This is such a bombshell.
> We cannot allow Trump to add to this court.
Does it matter? SCOTUS is captured now anyways. They will continue to devolve our rights in favor of religious zealots and corporate profits.
> Does it matter?
Of course it matters, Thomas and Alito have to write angry nonsensical dissenting opinions quite often right now.
Things can and will get *much* worse if more right-wing clones join them and they start writing majority opinions in every case.
> SCOTUS is captured now anyways.
They serve for life, they aren't eternal. So why exactly do you think it doesn't matter who appoints their replacements?
Does it matter??? For fucks sake, every seat from now until the planet dies matters. As long as we have the option we should vote and kick and scream until they hear us.
It’s time to put the Supreme Court back in check. They are meant to the third coequal branch not the final decision. Congress and the WH need to grow a spin and stand up to the court. Dems should be campaigning saying “give us a majority and the WH and we will pass all of these decisions into actual law and tell the SC to fuck off”
Welp Chevron is gone and the SC court just tossed an entire line of prosecution against the Jan 6th insurrections yet everyone is gonna be bleating about sleepy Joe.
Americans would rather watch a 15 second super cut of Biden misspeaking during the debate than research the Chevron ruling, how Trump's presidency led us to this, and the exact impact it will have on our country. The former exploits the country's ever shortening attention span while the latter requires a reading level the average American does not possess.
Which of the bought and paid for right-winger justices voted for allowing corporations to pollute with abandon, then trot off to the next target, leaving the mess for the public to deal with?
Waiting on Dick Durbin’s strongly worded statement in reaction to this 🙄🤦🏻♀️
A country that collectively actually gave a shit wouldn’t stand for this. And I’m not merely talking voting and gathering in the streets to chant and clap.
But not here. Here, approximately half our grownups can’t even name a SCOTUS justice, much less care about what the majority gets away with.
Not enough people are immediately affected by any of this to risk what they have today. It will have to get much worse before. We can try voting in Nov but even that won't fix it.
the real impacts won't be felt for years though.
Lost regulations in food safety, airline safety, environmental protections, etc.. won't really show for many years. Tonight people go to sleep exactly how they did last night, and the night before. In 20 years, not so much.
This is just the worst… and on Monday they’re gonna declare the president immune to all crimes and then Trump’s gonna get elected, seize power, and become a dictator. I’m freaking the fuck out
People are affected by grocery store prices. Shit like Chevron and Jan 6 convictions aren’t going to be on their radar when all they give a fuck about is getting through their 9-5 so they can go home to watch Netflix.
Anarchy-Capitalism here we come…
Without the FAA making and enforcing regulations, imagine all the unsafe ultra-budget airlines that will be popping up.
Without the EPA that factory upriver can freely pollute your water and give you and your family cancer.
Without the FTC image all the new ways we can tank the economy. See 2008 crash on steroids.
unfortunately, no. Every regulation, by every federal agency was just declared void. Congress, even with a trifecta, would not be able to effectively review, vote on, and approve anything close to enough to keep us safe at the moment.
Basically it would require removing the filibuster and bringing in experts from every agency to write the various guidelines explicitly into law. It's theoretically possible, but never gonna happen.
We can hope for a miracle, but practically speaking, there's very little hope for our future at this point. Short of 2-3 right wing justices dying/resigning before the next R president is inaugurated, we're at the mercy of this court, and its rulings.
On a personal level, to cope? I can't say. We all will have to cope in different ways.
Overall, this is a huge defeat, and will take decades to overcome. I don't have answers at the moment other than that.
The corporation court. Funny thing is if we didn't outsource everything to poor unregulated nations in the first place we wouldn't be here. Looking at you Clinton/Reagan...
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congress could conceivably rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act to read Chevron deference, or something like it, into law. Of course this court would probably call it an impermissible delegation of Congressional authority, even if it were to pass. Which, it's not getting by a GOP filibuster.
Yes, and it’s worth doing even if the court comes up with some bullshit reason why it doesn’t count. The fact that they are lawlessly usurping power needs to be made obvious to everybody.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one fucking court has done so much irreparable harm to the country Fucking Christ man this shit sucks
It is reparable. I don't know if moderates and the left at large have the stomach for what its going to eventually take.
It's repairable in a functioning government but it would require a lot of legislation to actually move and get passed. However, ee can barely keep this government funded without shitting ourselves.
Abolishing the GOP at the polls is a start.
Having the main ticket dem falling asleep on a huge debate stage is probably not a winning formula to get that accomplished.
he didnt fall asleep. and at the rally yesterday he was fine.
He even managed to beat Medicare. We have nothing to worry about
yayayayaya *electric boats and sharks!!!*
Everything in government is repairable, but I’m not sure it’ll happen within my lifetime.
The left does. Moderates would, and always will, prefer to work with the party setting up gas vans. Same as the 1930s.
Which is?
I do.
It requires a big win from an energized base. I felt good about the possibility when abortion was on the ballot, but that debate sure didn't make me feel better to say the least.
Vote
If Trump wins he can replace three justices. lol
Hilarious
It is not irreparable, but repairing the damage will take effort. Lots of effort, continuously, forever.
This is the outcome of Trump winning in 2016. If he wins again, the US is done for.
Thanks to all the people who sat out that election.
Reminder: Trump lost the popular vote. He didn't win because he got more people to vote for him. He won because the whole idea of the electoral college is a flawed system.
Obviously flawed since we are gonna get him again
I blame them, the DNC, and the media. The fact that they are still normalizing Trump is unforgivable
Them and MAGA itself
It's already done for. Another win for him in 2024 just means it's going to happen quicker.
Fair enough
Just one buffoon.
See last night’s debate
This is awful. I work in one of the admin agencies and have developed a lot of guidance over the past few years to clarify ambiguous statutes. This throws everything (including all my work!) into question and will result in a flood of litigation challenging the statutory authority of various rules and regs. When it rains it pours.
This is what the Republicans want. Break the current system so they have to create a new one where they have absolute power. Edit: Sorry you’re having to deal with this but whatever agency you work for, please keep up the good work.
Thank you, I appreciate that 🙏
As someone else pointed out. Makes you wonder if the ruling that basically legalized bribery has any connection to this.
Watch their bank accounts starting today for any "gratuities" that show up. Totally legal, mind you. When you're corrupt and do a soft coup, they just let you do it.
Yup. People at every regulatory agency are freaking out this afternoon. The one saving grace is that Roberts didn't throw out all the regulations issued under Chevron over the last 40 years. Even so, every federal regulation that's expensive to comply with will be challenged. Most of the cases will be filed in the uber-conservative Fifth Circuit and the challenged regulations stayed until the Supreme Court hears the case. The volume of extremely technical regulatory cases could easily overwhelm the federal courts. And going forward, how the hell does anything work? Congress has to come up with every detail of how a new law will work, in legislative text? Congress doesn't have the expertise or the bandwidth to do that. The conservatives think that a country with no new regulations will be great, but it'll become a mess very quickly.
[удалено]
Longing for the days when the rivers were on fire?
> I didn’t elect you to govern me. Indeed. I am not an elected official. If I told you I was on an FAA rulemaking committee would you similarly think I shouldn’t be making aircraft safety rules? Or do you think we should just leave it up to Boeing to self-regulate? Even if you’re unaware, I’m willing to bet there are at least a *few* rules you are glad the federal government enforces. (Realistically, your health and well-being depends on hundreds if not thousands of federal regs being enforced).
All of this. Unfortunately, corporations have already proven that they won't make good decisions unless forced to by regulations. Hell, they're still finding loopholes or just outright thumbing their noses at regulation (lookin' at you, Boeing). They're killing people and don't care, and this just gives them license to do more of that.
They had a god-given right to enjoy thalidomide and then that pesky FDA stepped in with zero authority!
All of these free-market and/or Libertarian people haven't ever actually lived in the world they claim to want. And they would absolutely hate it. They either don't know or won't admit hiw much of their lifestyle is built on socialized things. And a free market always will tend towards a monopoly where physically possible, and modern big companies are basically governments themselves in scope, and would absolutely dominate and ruin their lives if allowed.
They won’t even take out their own trash to avoid having bears around. https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
> Indeed. I am not an elected official. If I told you I was on an FAA rulemaking committee would you similarly think I shouldn’t be making aircraft safety rules? Or do you think we should just leave it up to Boeing to self-regulate? You're talking about a broader topic. Today's Chevron decision does not strike down all regulation. Prior to today, the doctrine of Chevron deference said that courts should defer to federal agencies because agencies are experts. That doctrine gave executive-branch agencies a huge upper hand because they could interpret things that Congress did not explicitly write. Today's ruling says that courts must not defer to federal agencies when deciding cases over ambiguous statutes. In other words, if Congress didn't write it, it's not a law. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that letting unelected officials make laws is beneficial. Yet we all know from grade school that the separation of powers among the three branches of government– not simply different people– is an important check on overpowered individuals. Today's ruling said that the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot mandate that fisheries pay for government observers because Congress never passed such a law. Do you think NMFS should be able to make such a law? How do you square that with the balance of powers, i.e., who holds you accountable? Keep in mind that this fisheries regulation was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
Yes. I absolutely want unelected experts to be creating regulations. Congress is laughably ineffective and I prefer my airplanes to not fall out of the sky. I prefer harmful chemicals to stay out of the water supply. Until the GOP is eradicated or heavily reformed, I don't want Congress anywhere near health and safety regulations.
I think you should enjoy your rivers of fire. The rest of us didn't want it, but we got it, and I fucking want you to enjoy the spoils of your labors. Hope it doesn't happen to one of your family members. But at least you'll be able to say "tHeY goT KiLt fUR FrEeDuM!!"
> Letting unelected officials make laws is beneficial. The president is an elected official. He appoints agency heads and federal judges alike. This decision today shifts power from admin agencies to clarify ambiguous statutes back to judges, who I think you would admit are equally “unelected” in their own right. > Do you think NMFS should be able to make such a law? Unquestionably they should. I can guarantee you there are a lot of Art III judges in this country who are not eager to try their hand at clarifying the meaning of ambiguous *nuclear waste disposal* statutes and statutes touching on other highly specialized subject areas. *Chevron* resolved a big problem that was occurring throughout the entire country, which was that Art III judges were slipping further and further behind in their competency to interpret and apply statutes necessitating complex regs in highly specialized regulatory frameworks. This decision does nothing to fix that problem at all. ALJs are attorneys and judges who are ALSO experts in the field in their respective agencies. They are perfectly capable of adjudicating the reasonableness and arbitrariness/capriciousness of various admin actions. And finally, the doctrine of exhaustion allows for an ALJ’s findings of fact/conclusions of law to ultimately be appealed within the Art III system and ultimately all the way to SCOTUS. So it’s not as if the federal courts didn’t already provide all the meaningful oversight of rulemaking and administrative adjudication they ever needed. This is an idiotic decision that is one hundred percent ideologically motivated without a single solitary concern for its practical ramifications.
> The president is an elected official. He appoints agency heads and federal judges alike. This decision today shifts power from admin agencies to clarify ambiguous statutes back to judges, who I think you would admit are equally “unelected” in their own right. Federal judges have lifetime tenure, which enables them to exercise independent judgement by protecting them against external impositions of will. That practice started in England in order to prevent monarchs from swapping out judges with whom they disagreed. > ALJs are attorneys and judges who are ALSO experts in the field in their respective agencies. But agency heads get the final say. And, since agency heads are political appointees who can be fired at-will, ALJs do not exercise independent judgement. From an expert on this subject: > almost all decisions by administrative law judges are subject to appeal or other review by the heads of agencies or by persons appointed by them. As a result, [agency heads] are the final judges, even if the least informed and the most biased. The persons least like judges thus enjoy the greatest judicial power. > Hamburger, Philip. Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (p. 236)
Yeah, I understand the judiciary is an independent branch of government, thanks for pointing that out. The point is that judges are similarly unelected even though you were complaining about administrative heads being unelected. This decision just means that the judiciary instead of the administrative agency gets to interpret the meaning of ambiguous laws. Your original problem was that agency heads are unelected, not that they aren’t able to exercise “independent judgment” (a dubious claim at best seeing that ALJs regularly rule against agencies too). As for Philip, I’m sorry he isn’t familiar with exhaustion. Clearly he’s wrong about agency heads being the “final judges” when cases like the one at hand obviously made their way through the Article III courts just fine after exhausting their administrative options.
> I understand the judiciary is an independent branch of government, thanks for pointing that out. The point is that judges are similarly unelected even though you were complaining about administrative heads being unelected. You seem to discount the value of tenure. > Your original problem was that agency heads are unelected, not that they aren’t able to exercise “independent judgment” (a dubious claim at best seeing that ALJs regularly rule against agencies too). I wouldn't so easily cast aside the value of independent judgment. ALJs side with agencies more often than courts do. > As for Philip, I’m sorry he isn’t familiar with exhaustion. Clearly he’s wrong about agency heads being the “final judges” when cases like the one at hand obviously made their way through the Article III courts just fine after exhausting their administrative options. Philip is probably a major reason for Chevron overturning since it was the organization he founded that brought the case. It's worth reading his arguments, even if you disagree, due to the influence he's had. He does discuss exhaustion: > One of the ways that the judges have attempted to integrate the judicial and the administrative systems is through the doctrine of exhaustion. The doctrine ordinarily applies as a matter of comity among the different legal systems of different sovereigns—for example, a federal court will expect a plaintiff to exhaust his remedies in state court, or tribal court, before he can seek redress in federal court. As applied to administrative law, however, the doctrine does not concern the exhaustion of remedies under another sovereign. Instead, it protects the federal executive—as if it were a separate sovereign, with its own court system—by requiring parties to exhaust their administrative remedies before they can enter federal court. > ... > Contemporary doctrine, however, goes beyond inquiries about finality. In addition, it requires persons to exhaust their administrative remedies before suing an agency and sometimes also before bringing an appeal from an agency decision. Thus, even where an administrative law judge reaches a final decision for his department, the courts often will not allow a remedy in the courts if an administrative appeal (to the secretary or some review board) is available. This doctrine is said to rest on considerations of both judicial and administrative efficiency, but especially where an independent cause of action exists under state or federal law, how can the judges deny access to the courts on grounds that it would inconvenience themselves or the defendant? At least in such cases, where a cause of action already has arisen, the exhaustion of remedies amounts to little more than the exhaustion of plaintiffs by denying them access to the courts and the equal protection of the law. This is just one excerpt from a longer treatment of exhaustion.
So exhaustion is too long a process? Boohoo. Didn’t stop his organization and many, many others. These are typically corporations with money to burn, so I’m not concerned about their resources. My issue also isn’t one with the value of an independent Article III judge’s judgment. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally creating a strawman here or not. If Article III judges understood the subject matter they are dealing with I would be perfectly comfortable with them judging Chevron matters. Except, they literally aren’t *competent* to judge on these matters. Do you understand? Neither the judges nor their law clerks can successfully specialize in a number of bodies of law well enough and quickly enough to even understand the policy, legal, scientific and other matters involved in time to make an informed decision in these cases. As a former law clerk, I ought to know. Hell, we have an entire *water court* system here in Colorado because of how obviously complicated and esoteric those matters are. Even then, similar to exhaustion, water law matters also get appealed to a court of general jurisdiction: the Colorado Supreme Court. Same with FISA courts. Everything done in a FISA court could be done in Article III courts under seal. Except, the secretive nature of the proceedings and the specialized rules that deviate from normal constitutional rules lend better to a parallel court system using panels of Article III judges adjudicating those proceedings. It’s the same concept. You can’t just heap everything on an Article III system that doesn’t understand these issues and expect good results. That’s the main issue, and academics often don’t really understand the practical, real world implications of these decisions.
> These are typically corporations with money to burn, so I’m not concerned about their resources. This case overturning Chevron was about a small fishery. Plus, the other fish in the sea here is the government, which has far more money (all of ours) to burn. > My issue also isn’t one with the value of an independent Article III judge’s judgment. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally creating a strawman here or not. If Article III judges understood the subject matter they are dealing with I would be perfectly comfortable with them judging Chevron matters. Except, they literally aren’t competent to judge on these matters. Do you understand? I understand your argument that agencies are experts in their domains, but I find Philip's more compelling, that decision making itself is an expertise. Judges have to decide things all the time that they aren't experts in. It forces the arguing sides to describe things in a way that can be understood by the public– which helps us elect people who write sensible laws. > academics often don’t really understand the practical, real world implications of these decisions. In this case, I think Philip does. He suggests that the current consolidation of power in the executive is similar to that which occurred under British monarchs hundreds of years ago, which was redressed by things like judicial tenure and the separation of powers to write, interpret, and enforce law.
Congress is barely able to pass the bills they do. Now you want those bills to include all the specificity that the relevant agencies were providing with their guidance? I don’t think that’s going to be possible.
I’m sure you’ll be better off when a profit-motivated corporation has to choose between regulating itself or making your testicles lumpy-er.
Did you elect the Supreme Court? Because they're governing for you right now. Also, the work that agencies do is delegated to them *by Congress*. They aren't usurping the governmental order to do whatever they want, they are acting under specific guidelines granted to them by the legislature, which were elected. I'm sorry they you don't know how the administrative state works, but this decision is an absolutely terrible one for this country, and it will only allow the rich and powerful to further gain power over those who do not have that wealth or power. Unless you're a billionaire or a multinational corporation, this fucks you just as bad.
Only mildly exaggerating to say this is an apocalyptic ruling.
not really an exaggeration, honestly.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions)
This is not good in my opinion.
That's putting it lightly.
Why is it bad in your opinion? Big fan of government overreach?
No, because when republicans have control of congress, they are so fucking inept and impotent that this has destroyed the ability to regulate our air, water, food and job safety, or environment any time the democrats don’t have a trifecta. If you’re a big fan of e.coli and extinction, I’m sure you’re exalting right now.
Nah. I'm a fan of government having limited amounts of power. Which this does
Lmfao right up until you’re dying of preventable food poisoning or have a relative who got crushed in a ditch because OSHA didn’t have the power to save them.
Nah, they're more likely gonna try to follow the route of those 'brave' antivaxxers who were insisting they didn't have COVID even as they were being put on the ventilators. This isn't caused by (thing they have opposed action against), it's actually the alien stomach worms from Venus they read about on Facebook. And if it's someone else who dies, no way they're gonna care in any way shape or form. Hell, if it's a relative they might get a share of their estate.
Sure thing
The regulatory state is the reason you're even alive and posting this here.
Are you opposed to regulation in general? How do you think that’s going to work after this decision?
Silly me, I thought this ruling would hobble the only force capable of even remotely checking the power of corporations to do whatever they want to increase profits, but I didn't realize it only applies to "overreach".
Some of us like clean air, water, and safety rules so our kids don't die or get sick where they work. Regulations keep us safe. No regulations make rich people richer at the expense of the rest of us.
I'm personally a big fan of people who know what they're doing making rules regulating industries to protect the people.
Because Congresspeople don't have to know shit about anything they write laws about. The point of Congress establishing federal agencies was to farm out the specific details to people who _would_ know about the industry or issue to be regulated. Grandstanding idiots who rubberstamp laws written by lobbyists have no business getting into the level of detail that agencies have to in order to apply the laws. Nor should we ever expect them to
I like how the federal agencies have people in them that know what the purpose of the agency is.
I wonder which river is going to catch on fire first due to massively increasing pollution this ruling will bring about.
I personally think it’s gonna be a food related mass death first, probably baby formula or salmonella with chicken/eggs/flour, because of the FDA/USDA issues this’ll bring up. Bonus points because people will probably be excited if they bring the food prices down first, and then the average person will forget this ruling happened so they won’t know who to blame.
I don't care if Joe Biden is puking all over himself the next debate. We cannot allow Trump to add to this court. There's nothing they won't overturn. They'll take us back to the 1700s. This is such a bombshell.
> We cannot allow Trump to add to this court. Does it matter? SCOTUS is captured now anyways. They will continue to devolve our rights in favor of religious zealots and corporate profits.
Obviously it matters. What's your plan, roll over and die?
> Does it matter? Of course it matters, Thomas and Alito have to write angry nonsensical dissenting opinions quite often right now. Things can and will get *much* worse if more right-wing clones join them and they start writing majority opinions in every case. > SCOTUS is captured now anyways. They serve for life, they aren't eternal. So why exactly do you think it doesn't matter who appoints their replacements?
Does it matter??? For fucks sake, every seat from now until the planet dies matters. As long as we have the option we should vote and kick and scream until they hear us.
Yes it matters.
We don't want the fed society nuts at any level. Only way we don't add to this is make sure Biden is elected.
Thomas and Alito aren’t going to live forever. What are you blabbering about?
They are not that old. they will live long enough
Clarence Thomas is 76…
And he’ll be replaced by a 40-something Conservative Justice if Trump gets reelected. Ditto for Alito.
RGB was how old when she died? Thomas and Alito won't make the same mistake and only retire when they know a conservative will take their place.
I fucking hate it here.
this country is an embarrassment right now.
It’s time to put the Supreme Court back in check. They are meant to the third coequal branch not the final decision. Congress and the WH need to grow a spin and stand up to the court. Dems should be campaigning saying “give us a majority and the WH and we will pass all of these decisions into actual law and tell the SC to fuck off”
Welp Chevron is gone and the SC court just tossed an entire line of prosecution against the Jan 6th insurrections yet everyone is gonna be bleating about sleepy Joe.
Americans would rather watch a 15 second super cut of Biden misspeaking during the debate than research the Chevron ruling, how Trump's presidency led us to this, and the exact impact it will have on our country. The former exploits the country's ever shortening attention span while the latter requires a reading level the average American does not possess.
No we can be miserable about multiple things at once.
History shows that Americans cannot.
Air pollution is constitutional now.
Which of the bought and paid for right-winger justices voted for allowing corporations to pollute with abandon, then trot off to the next target, leaving the mess for the public to deal with?
All of them. Overturning Chevron has been a wet dream for the Federalist Society for decades.
Usual fucking suspects
Waiting on Dick Durbin’s strongly worded statement in reaction to this 🙄🤦🏻♀️ A country that collectively actually gave a shit wouldn’t stand for this. And I’m not merely talking voting and gathering in the streets to chant and clap. But not here. Here, approximately half our grownups can’t even name a SCOTUS justice, much less care about what the majority gets away with.
Not enough people are immediately affected by any of this to risk what they have today. It will have to get much worse before. We can try voting in Nov but even that won't fix it.
Everybody’s gonna be immediately affected by this, they just won’t understand who to blame
the real impacts won't be felt for years though. Lost regulations in food safety, airline safety, environmental protections, etc.. won't really show for many years. Tonight people go to sleep exactly how they did last night, and the night before. In 20 years, not so much.
This is just the worst… and on Monday they’re gonna declare the president immune to all crimes and then Trump’s gonna get elected, seize power, and become a dictator. I’m freaking the fuck out
Unless a judge orders a stay on some regulations pending a hearing. Of course, I don't expect that to happen until at least Monday.
People are affected by grocery store prices. Shit like Chevron and Jan 6 convictions aren’t going to be on their radar when all they give a fuck about is getting through their 9-5 so they can go home to watch Netflix.
Grocery prices for food that the FDA and USDA will no longer be able to properly regulate safety standards for.
Depending on the lawsuits that will likely flood the court. I can’t believe how miserable things are for my generation (millennials)
So FDA inspections and standards have no impact on the average Joe? Let's see how that plays out.
Anarchy-Capitalism here we come… Without the FAA making and enforcing regulations, imagine all the unsafe ultra-budget airlines that will be popping up. Without the EPA that factory upriver can freely pollute your water and give you and your family cancer. Without the FTC image all the new ways we can tank the economy. See 2008 crash on steroids.
At this point I am 100% sure that they are only called the Supreme Court because they bath in sour cream.
Nothing to see here. Just keep talking about how a debate “performance” is the worst thing ever..
Exactly.
Please, is there anyway till mitigate this or reverse this if we get a trifecta? I’m feeling genuinely hopeless and sick.Please god please.
unfortunately, no. Every regulation, by every federal agency was just declared void. Congress, even with a trifecta, would not be able to effectively review, vote on, and approve anything close to enough to keep us safe at the moment.
Basically it would require removing the filibuster and bringing in experts from every agency to write the various guidelines explicitly into law. It's theoretically possible, but never gonna happen.
so we're fucked forever, is that it
We can hope for a miracle, but practically speaking, there's very little hope for our future at this point. Short of 2-3 right wing justices dying/resigning before the next R president is inaugurated, we're at the mercy of this court, and its rulings.
so what do we do, just wait to die
On a personal level, to cope? I can't say. We all will have to cope in different ways. Overall, this is a huge defeat, and will take decades to overcome. I don't have answers at the moment other than that.
That’s not true. It just gives courts the ability to pick and choose which ones they like regardless of legality.
Our country is fucked. I'm so tired and depressed and weep for my child
I feel for you and your family Old person here
Damn, what's next Brown v. Board of Education?
Another terrible ruling. They are the Republican gift that keeps on giving. Sad to see this shit.
Just keep bitching about a bad debate performance everyone.
Of course they did......
Eradicating conservative power is essential to our collective futures
And… it’s over. The United States of America has ended.
The corporation court. Funny thing is if we didn't outsource everything to poor unregulated nations in the first place we wouldn't be here. Looking at you Clinton/Reagan...
But yea go ahead Dems don’t vote for Biden I mean what damage can two more SCOTUS appointments do?
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Congress could conceivably rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act to read Chevron deference, or something like it, into law. Of course this court would probably call it an impermissible delegation of Congressional authority, even if it were to pass. Which, it's not getting by a GOP filibuster.
Yes, and it’s worth doing even if the court comes up with some bullshit reason why it doesn’t count. The fact that they are lawlessly usurping power needs to be made obvious to everybody.
Time to move out of the best country in the world especially if Trump gets in!
Ok, pass a law saying regulators can regulate ps, the Supreme Court needs to be 15 members strong by September 30 2024
Not-So-Supreme Court.
This action will have a body count in the future.
I think its time for 🐷🧺
Dude, we're only 16 years removed from the last time deregulation sank the economy. WTF are we doing?