SCOTUS

[USUC]

I have always thought that Congress could fix a lot of the issues which are complained about as agency overreach by simply amending the APA to require a weekly, mandatory up/down vote by both houses at a set time for the federal register that either approves or sends each agency back to the drawing board.

My biggest issue with Chevron was that it applied when some part of the agency empowerment was ambiguous. As I understand the teeth gnashers, the new standard of review just allows the courts to insert their judgment in lieu of an agency when something is ambiguous. The up/down vote by Congress would unambiguously establish whether an agency is following what the critters intended with their enabling statute.

For those who say that the Mike Lees of the world will always vote no just because of the wanker that he is, I say that it is up to the journalists of the world and each local community to hold these critters accountable for each yes/no vote, so that each critter can be held to account by his/her constituency. Now, if a constituency is not up to educating itself and holding their elected critters accountable, then the country is already beyond hope and it really doesn't matter if an agency, a congress, or a court makes a decision on some ambiguous piece of legislation.

Or maybe Congress could not write ambiguous laws!!!

Could this force congress to actually try to legislate and, if they do poorly, force the populace to elect serious people? A man can dream.

[BigFatMeanie]

Because they have experts and Congress has always been a mess with regulation. When regulation goes overboard, then lawsuits are filed and it gets worked out. That process seems to work fine to this point.

Except for when legitimate lawsuits are not filed and instead there is an agency tribunal where the agency is the prosecutor, judge, and jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/u...-tribunal.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

This seems to be a nice summation of the impact of the ruling:

Embedded Tweet

tl;dr summary:

But again, even before Loper, Chevron did not apply to cases involving questions of major economic or political significance. The Court has required agencies to point to clear congressional authorizations in those cases, not mere silence or ambiguity. So Loper did not end Chevron’s application to the most significant set of agency decisions.

At bottom, agencies will still win significant cases after Loper, but the Supreme Court’s decision puts regular people and businesses on a more level playing field with the government when they challenge a regulatory overreach.

[frank ryan]

Oh geeze, it sound like the next target of SCOTUS activism could be OSHA. This truly could become the golden age for robber barrons.

[USUC]

This seems to be a nice summation of the impact of the ruling:

Embedded Tweet

tl;dr summary:

People losing their minds over this keep invoking clean air and environmental agencies being completely gutted but are oblivious to the hundreds of departments no one has even heard of who are egregiously corrupt and authoritarian. This case was brought up because the National Marine Fisheries Service required a family fishing operation to pay hundreds of dollars a day for them to oversee/regulate their business. No where in the statute creating this service does it say they have this power. They just decided on their own that private businesses would have to pay them to regulate their own business.

[frank ryan]

I have always thought that Congress could fix a lot of the issues which are complained about as agency overreach by simply amending the APA to require a weekly, mandatory up/down vote by both houses at a set time for the federal register that either approves or sends each agency back to the drawing board.

My biggest issue with Chevron was that it applied when some part of the agency empowerment was ambiguous. As I understand the teeth gnashers, the new standard of review just allows the courts to insert their judgment in lieu of an agency when something is ambiguous. The up/down vote by Congress would unambiguously establish whether an agency is following what the critters intended with their enabling statute.

For those who say that the Mike Lees of the world will always vote no just because of the wanker that he is, I say that it is up to the journalists of the world and each local community to hold these critters accountable for each yes/no vote, so that each critter can be held to account by his/her constituency. Now, if a constituency is not up to educating itself and holding their elected critters accountable, then the country is already beyond hope and it really doesn't matter if an agency, a congress, or a court makes a decision on some ambiguous piece of legislation.

Or maybe Congress could not write ambiguous laws!!!

Congress can't function. They are also often directly motivated by political ambition rather than the best interests of the country. And with some of these issues, that is a real problem.

[falafel]

Don't you find it problematic that agencies have been empowered to invent their own authority? There is no doubt this will be rather disruptive, especially given congress' preference for theatrics over legislating. But congress can give agencies the power to do what they currently do. And they usually take the lazy way out.

I don't find it problematic because I don't see it as "inventing their own authority." Congress passes the laws and gives the agency the frame work and then asks the agency, as the "experts" in the field, to come up with rules that properly implement the laws. Then there's the whole rulemaking process with the notice and comment periods, etc. Interested parties can chime in and point out why a proposed rule is a bad idea.

I think I agree with falafel on this one. Federal agencies do take advantage of the power they were given under Chevron, but I can’t imagine congress trying to legislate specifics around regulations…and I even work in the oil and gas industry, which by its nature hates regulatory bodies.

Consider how the process would go if Congress has to make all these rules themselves (and even assume they are competent and keep politics largely out of it). They'd create a sub-committee for a particular agency, seek rule proposals from industry experts and interested parties, the members on those sub-committees will hire their own experts to decipher the proposals and give the member opinions and advice, they'll hold hearings on the proposals, maybe make revisions, and ultimately vote on a proposed set of rules, which will later need to be approved by the full house.

Again, that's if people aren't playing politics. But think how long that process would take! Longer than the just-murdered admin rulemaking process? And guess who is really writing all those rules the members are going to present and pass? The very same "experts" in the field that are running the agencies now. Except they'll all be private sector consulting firm employees and will charge Congress up the ass for their expertise, all while being totally shielded from any liability or consequences for their actions, which are just "proposals" after all. Congress won't take responsibility either, because they were just relying on the "experts".

[Pelado]

I don't find it problematic because I don't see it as "inventing their own authority." Congress passes the laws and gives the agency the frame work and then asks the agency, as the "experts" in the field, to come up with rules that properly implement the laws. Then there's the whole rulemaking process with the notice and comment periods, etc. Interested parties can chime in and point out why a proposed rule is a bad idea.



Consider how the process would go if Congress has to make all these rules themselves (and even assume they are competent and keep politics largely out of it). They'd create a sub-committee for a particular agency, seek rule proposals from industry experts and interested parties, the members on those sub-committees will hire their own experts to decipher the proposals and give the member opinions and advice, they'll hold hearings on the proposals, maybe make revisions, and ultimately vote on a proposed set of rules, which will later need to be approved by the full house.

Again, that's if people aren't playing politics. But think how long that process would take! Longer than the just-murdered admin rulemaking process? And guess who is really writing all those rules the members are going to present and pass? The very same "experts" in the field that are running the agencies now. Except they'll all be private sector consulting firm employees and will charge Congress up the ass for their expertise, all while being totally shielded from any liability or consequences for their actions, which are just "proposals" after all. Congress won't take responsibility either, because they were just relying on the "experts".

As I understand it, this ruling doesn't prevent agencies from following the same procedures they have in the past with regards to rule writing. The difference is that the court doesn't have to give extra weight to the agency when a dispute arises.

[falafel]

As I understand it, this ruling doesn't prevent agencies from following the same procedures they have in the past with regards to rule writing. The difference is that the court doesn't have to give extra weight to the agency when a dispute arises.

whoops. I haven't actually read the decision.

But I think my comments about the agencies authority isn't problematic in the S.Ct. either. Under Chevron, the court afforded the agency deference, but its not absolute.

[Maximus]

court finds trump immune for "official" acts. I wonder how roberts will be remembered.

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

The immunity ruling will be interesting. There is no way they grant complete immunity. At the same time, zero immunity is equally unlikely. Coming up with a standard for where the balance should lie will be tricky.

And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.

[Uncle Ted]

And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.

LOL… Given all the comments coming from the Dems this morning you just called them all fools.

[Maximus]

And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.

I didnt expect you to be ok with this. wow.

right down the middle

[All-American]

This seems to be a nice summation of the impact of the ruling:

Embedded Tweet

tl;dr summary:

The major decision doctrine was the Court's tell. "Well, sure, we apply deference, but not when we think it really matters...." The fact that this exception was ever created just goes to show that the rule was no good in the first place.

[BlueK]

And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.

So now there is essentially no such thing as an illegal order as long as it's official? What goes Goatnapper think about that? If that’s not what this ruling means please explain.