Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#811

Post by idkwhatimdoin » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:55 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #744

mushufasa wrote: post #608

This is a complete disaster. The ramifications will be felt for decades. Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything. And immeasurable impacts of cowing all bold business decisions to avoid the ire of any person or group, no matte…

> Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything Businesses already have to deal with frequent litigation, including class-action lawsuits even in areas that overlap with regulatory agencies. Quite to the contrary of what you are sug…

Except this and other rulings mean there's no such thing as "solid precedent" anymore.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#812

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:56 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #679

throwdown7653 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Downvoted. At best the person you referring to is ignorant how reality works. But they are also indistinguishable from someone who doesn't value words at all and is lying for political gain. Why should such be allowed? Edit - and remember you're not allowed to downvote me because I'm being perfectly civil. But the only way to stop me is to downvote me or get the mods to censor me.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#813

Post by winter_blue » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:00 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #678

autoexec wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists and there's effectively zero chance that a bunch of republicans who want to dismantle the already inadequate regulations that keep entire communities from being pois…

How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?

It’s partly (1) due to the structure (or rather, flaws) of the US constitution, (2) a ridiculous senate rule, and (3) gerrymandering as others have mentioned.

On (1): needing the approval of the senate, house, and president makes it very hard to pass laws.

On (2): the senate rule requiring 60% approval has already been repealed for appointments and for budgetary legislation, but it really needs to thrown out. The first two years of Biden’s presidency were mostly lost to obstructionism because of this rule.

On (3): this will most likely be banned if democrats get a trifecta federal control, and repeal (2), since gerrymandering primarily just benefits republicans.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#814

Post by nielsbot » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:03 PM UTC

dilippkumar wrote: post #365

rswail wrote: post #99

I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…

> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

Hate to break it to you, but your Libertarian fantasy will not work out the way you think it will.

We are going to see more pollution, more child labor, more exploitation of poor immigrants and more hoarding of wealth by the few among other side effects.

There's a reason only the "conservative" SCOTUS justices have billionaire "friends".

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#815

Post by imchillyb » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:08 PM UTC

idkwhatimdoin wrote: post #811

Gormo wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything Businesses already have to deal with frequent litigation, including class-action lawsuits even in areas that overlap with regulatory agencies. Quite to the contrary of what you are sug…

Except this and other rulings mean there's no such thing as "solid precedent" anymore.

The moment a court is asked to make a decision on one of these matters there will then be case-building precedent.

What your comment suggests is that there will _never_ be 'solid precedent' which is an inaccurate interpretation.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#816

Post by anon373839 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:13 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #700

VincentEvans wrote: post #664

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

The court decided this on statutory grounds because that's what this court likes to do: base decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. But it mentioned Marbury quite prominently and it's pretty clear that the court will not sustain a law that codifies Chevron.

I suppose Congress could use its power under Article III’s Exceptions Clause to strip the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of jurisdiction to hear cases challenging an agency’s adherence to its enabling statute. Courts would still always be able to hear constitutional challenges, of course.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#817

Post by techostritch » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:13 PM UTC

voxic11 wrote: post #413

OutOfHere wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To continue, although people will complain about the risk of environmental harm from this ruling, this harm is more a function of easy loans to companies that emit pollution. If you were change the money supply back to being gold-backed, the easy loans go away, the "growth at all costs" mantra dials back, and the ongoing environmental harm thereby modulates itself. It is the root cause of the unsustainable growth and…

Also its funny because the original Chevron case was about how under Reagan the EPA re-interpreted the Clean Air Act to make it easier for companies to introduce new pollution sources. The EPA was sued and the lower courts backed the original interpretation of the Clean Air Act. This was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Chevron decision which said the courts must defer to the EPA's new interpretation. So the en…

So, I don’t think I’ve seen this language used, but does this basically end the use of “executive orders”? That’s what executive orders were right, advice to agencies on how to interpret laws?

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#818

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:13 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #780

tstrimple wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standing doesn’t matter. A conservative website creator was able to take a case all the way up to the Supreme Court without ever have been sued. They just made up a situation where an alleged customer demanded they make a gay website. The customer never even existed. This is on top of the Supreme Court literally legalizing bribing of government officials across the country as long as the payment is made after the fav…

That website creator sued their state's regulatory agency, and "sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute."[1] Yes, the alleged "situation" may have been contrived, but that doesn't change whether they have sta…

The strange thing there is that for a few decades now federal courts have required a plaintiff to have suffered some sort of injury before they can sue, and the notion that a credible threat is equivalent to such injury seems to overstretch that concept.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/standing-in-the-w...

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#819

Post by imchillyb » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:13 PM UTC

ytpete wrote: post #795

Gormo wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action. Sounds great. How we got to the point where executive-branch agencies were making rules with the force of law, binding upon the public with no judicial oversight, is a mystery to me, but it's good to see that the courts are taking their responsibil…

There's been plenty of judicial oversight – courts could always overturn any regulations or actions by an agency that the court decided were not based on a "reasonable" interpretation of the law passed by Congress.

> ...that the court decided...

You've just touched upon why this hasn't worked in the past. With Chevron the interpretation was left up to the agency, and courts never got to decide anything.

Without Chevron, the courts will now be able to do exactly what you're suggesting.

You're _actually_ in favor of disabling Chevron, which the SC just did.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#820

Post by fzeroracer » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 11:15 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #444

immibis wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.

> It won't force Congress to do shit. In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post- Dobbs , with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else. Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to r…

Okay, so a blue state steps in to make themselves a safe haven. Conservative courts sue and take cases up to the supreme court to force their will on them. Said blue state then says 'I believe the supreme court ruling is invalid and will not adhere by it'. What exactly do you think will happen?

And for reference, there has already been trends of this occurring. The Texas bounty hunter law for women who have abortions is an example, where they have tried to sue other states for records pertaining to abortions (See: Texas vs Seattle Children's Hospital).