A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.
A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.
One recent Supreme Court decision is already rippling through dozens of key lower court cases involving everything from airline fees to gun sales to abortion access, affecting people’s lives in important — and sometimes contradictory — ways.
A bunch of people on Lemmy were defending this decision after it came out, suggesting that the courts were the best place to litigate things like corporations causing massive environmental damage rather than the EPA doing it because you couldn't trust the EPA under a conservative administration to act fairly.
And then maybe a week later, SCOTUS said presidents could commit crimes if it was part of an official act.
I stopped seeing defenses of SCOTS' decision on Loper Bright after that.
I'd never heard of the Loper Bright case. This looks as bad as Citizens United.
The high court rejected a doctrine granting deference to regulatory agencies in interpreting laws when Congress hasn’t clearly defined the scope of the agencies’ power.
That doctrine, known as Chevron deference, was named after the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it emerged, and it offered an answer to a recurring question: What happens when Congress passes a law granting power to a federal agency but fails to precisely define the boundaries of that power?
In such situations, the doctrine of Chevron deference instructed federal judges to rely on the interpretations made by federal agencies, as long as those interpretations were reasonable, since agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges.
Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan noted that federal courts had cited Chevron deference 18,000 times, making it “part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” She warned of “large-scale disruption.”
What’s worse is that the current SCOTUS has twice now (at minimum) demonstrated that it can right what it perceives as wrongs made by previous SCOTUS decisions (Roe v Wade, and now Loper Bright), and yet we still have Citizens United.
The SCOTUS is effectively playing the long game in creating a coup against the US government. I’d blame conservatives/GOP, but I feel this is much more nefarious than they could come up with on their own. But that’s teetering on tinfoil hat territory. 🕵️♂️
Edit: I realized I meant to reply to @d00phy@lemmy.world’s comment. 😊
I’d blame conservatives/GOP, but I feel this is much more nefarious than they could come up with on their own.
The Federalist Society is the shadowy organization you're looking for.
We're already balls deep in Russian intervention. I don't think conspiracy is off the table.
Not saying the Chevron deference should have been rejected out of hand, but if it has been cited as much as Kagan says it sounds like Congress needs to work with these agencies to write better laws. Of course some deference will always be needed. The SCOTUS decision was idealism at its worst. They ignore that these agencies act as extensions of Congress. Unfortunately the “originalists” on the court have a childish adherence to their strict interpretation BS.
You don't want congress writing exacting laws in a lot of regulatory situations. Think if congress right now was setting interest rates. It wouldn't get done until long after the economy had imploded. Even if they were listening to the same economists, political problems would create a disaster. The same is true in most cases concerning the EPA and other regulatory agencies. By the time congress would be able to respond to a situation, everyone would have died of whatever the problem was.
FFS, I said the Chevron deference shouldn’t have been overturned. I also suggested Congress work with the agencies to write a better law, not define the whole fucking building code, for example. Congress just has to write laws giving the agencies the appropriate deference. As I previously stated, the agencies act on behalf, or as an extension of Congress, so the relevant laws need to reflect that so the idiots on SCOTUS can say, “oh yeah it’s right there in black and white,” rather than inferring that an agency chartered by Congress has said Congress’ bidding to carry out the mandates of its charter.
Congress has barely been able to pass critical funding bills. Do you really think they're functional enough to pass highly technical and involved legislation for specific agencies?
I would say the tsunami has started and the dams are breaking. Just turn on the news and see how many companies or Industries are doing away with DEI programs.
Effects Were Immediate: After less than three months, parties or judges have invoked the new ruling in 110 cases, with more likely to come.
That ruling led dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to warn that the “tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holding in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
It’s too early to say whether a legal tsunami is coming,