The End of Environmental Regulations/Chevron

[Sytes]

This is a great breakdown of the SCOTUS ruling - for those interested.

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[SAJ-99]

This is a great breakdown of the SCOTUS ruling - for those interested.

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret […]

www.scotusblog.com

I get that a person immediately sees the benefit where this eliminates a situation where someone felt oppressed by some agency rule, but they ignore all the instances where the agency rules help and protects them indirectly. For the TLDR crowd, one example is I think they just made most insider trading on stock legal, or at least the illegality is more questionable. I usually don’t like “slippery slope” arguments, but think it is very applicable in this situation. This SCOTUS has shown a willingness to reverse longstanding precedents and this could lead easily lead to instability in our understanding of rules across a variety of areas. Be careful what you wish for. I am now more concerned about the corner crossing case.

 

[brocksw]

I am now more concerned about the corner crossing case.

Could this help the corner crossing case? Since it was litigated and the courts got their say instead of just a rule that came down from the USFS or BLM?

 

[44hunter45]

An dishonest politician is bought; an honest politician stays bought. Is that Will Rogers?

BF is always saying the fastest way to become an expert in game management is to get elected. I think it applies across the board. My reps quote the AFB lobby guide more accurately than the Bible.

As much as we grouse about "gridlock" when it effects our favorite legislation, it is an important check and balance in the Capitol.

 

[Sytes]

I usually don’t like “slippery slope” arguments

I would say the slippery slope occurred when it was opined the Chevron deference overcame a congressional Act.

 

[mxracer317]

Just a heads up: SCOTUS just overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which is the precedent that gave federal agencies deference/rulemaking authority. This doctrine benefitted both political parties and their administrations during the many years it was the rule, by streamlining agency authority. It is one of the most cited cases in U.S. history.

What this means going forward is that the BLM, Forest Service, etc. can only make rules expressly authorized by congress. Anything that is fuzzy, or used to be deferred to the experts in those fields, will now have to go through our much-less-efficient congress.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/chevron-precedent-supreme-court/index.html

Does that mean corner crossing issues?

 

[SAJ-99]

I would say the slippery slope occurred when it was opined the Chevron deference overcame a congressional Act.

If I agree or not it almost irrelevant. There has been 40 years of precedent on the ruling. We have 70-90 years of precedent on major acts around the Securities markets and 40 years of precedent on the EPA and OSHA. Starting with the Constitution, a lot of laws have been written with intentional vagueness to accommodate a changing world. This SCOTUS attacked previous SCOTUS rulings and dismantled the basic premise of agency interpretive rules. Maybe that is an extreme interpretation, maybe not. Time will tell. Everyone can find good and bad in their individual views, but it seems asking Congress to rewrite laws (a LOT of laws) and be more precise is almost laughable given the current level of incompetence in that body. The ultimate result is that an agency might just have to take every punitive action through the court system. Which means I will now start training my 10 year old to be a lawyer.

Could this help the corner crossing case? Since it was litigated and the courts got their say instead of just a rule that came down from the USFS or BLM?

I would say it is certainly better than if it were a USFS or BLM rule. But I admit it is impossible to say, and other members opinions would be more insightful. This SCOTUS will not be known for consistency in arguments or adherence to precedent. The Unlawful Enclosures Act has been validated for 150 years and would certainly be a starting point for allowing CC, but I have little doubt this SCTOUS could generate an opinion blowing up the whole thing.

 

[Mountain Man]

I’m cautiously optimistic that this was a net positive development. I agree that it will be a bumpy road in the near term as the balance/obligations between the Executive and Legislative branches normalizes, but I think it will be better once we are past the hard part.

Congress responds to deadlines and existential pressure. If it is all of the sudden on the hook to pass more precisely written laws for our country (specifically the economy) to function, then it will figure out a way to do so. I actually think this will be a great forcing function that will result in positive outcomes after the bumpy adjustment period.

 

[jimh406]

It also means the unelected who have zero accountability to citizens will no longer be able to create rules that are essentially treated like laws.

 

[Sytes]

It also means the unelected who have zero accountability to citizens will no longer be able to create rules that are essentially treated like laws.

Agree - an example:

Senator Frank Church, direct sponsor and involved creator of our Wilderness Act,
"The agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

 

[Straight Arrow]

Agree - an example:

Senator Frank Church, direct sponsor and involved creator of our Wilderness Act,
"The agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

Don't you be jumpin' on your e-bike again!

 

[SAJ-99]

It also means the unelected who have zero accountability to citizens will no longer be able to create rules that are essentially treated like laws.

Sounds like you are describing the entire Federal judiciary. Maybe we should have elections for SCOTUS?

 

[Big Slick]

I went to Alaska quite a few years ago and found myself on a fishing boat with a forest service expert. He was the expert that was handling the spotted owl debacle. It was awkward as I had worked in a redwood sawmill for years during the spotted owl bs.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I get that a person immediately sees the benefit where this eliminates a situation where someone felt oppressed by some agency rule, but they ignore all the instances where the agency rules help and protects them indirectly. For the TLDR crowd, one example is I think they just made most insider trading on stock legal, or at least the illegality is more questionable. I usually don’t like “slippery slope” arguments, but think it is very applicable in this situation. This SCOTUS has shown a willingness to reverse longstanding precedents and this could lead easily lead to instability in our understanding of rules across a variety of areas. Be careful what you wish for. I am now more concerned about the corner crossing case.

You are probably too young to have experienced, but folks had the same concerns about the Stone, Vinson and Warren courts. Some of the very best court rulings over the decades have reversed long standing precedents. Reversing precedent is not new. What feels new is liberal leaning folks being dismayed at times by a court they had "in their pocket" for 75+ years. They cared little about precedent or the warnings of doom from the other side of the political aisle as they used SCOTUS to reshape society for from the New Deal forward. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they pout and cry foul. There is nothing new going on in the court these days, it's just that some folks always assumed they would get their way endlessly to the detriment of others. And now they learn it goes both ways. Maybe both sides should do a little reflecting and turn our attention away from unelected judges answering all the key questions to making our legislative bodies work - as that is where democracy truly lives or dies. Without a vibrant and effective legislature, a court of any ideology that decides it will govern society via the bench in the vacuum, is just government via an undemocratic oligarchy.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would say the slippery slope occurred when it was opined the Chevron deference overcame a congressional Act.

Scalia was concerned that a recalcitrant judiciary would slow the "Reagan revolution". Forty years later Gorsuch is concerned a huge unelected and nearly untouchable administrative state will crowd out anything resembling democracy. Both strong conservatives, but came to opposite sides of the same issue given the changing of the times.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If I agree or not it almost irrelevant. There has been 40 years of precedent on the ruling. We have 70-90 years of precedent on major acts around the Securities markets and 40 years of precedent on the EPA and OSHA. Starting with the Constitution, a lot of laws have been written with intentional vagueness to accommodate a changing world. This SCOTUS attacked previous SCOTUS rulings and dismantled the basic premise of agency interpretive rules. Maybe that is an extreme interpretation, maybe not. Time will tell. Everyone can find good and bad in their individual views, but it seems asking Congress to rewrite laws (a LOT of laws) and be more precise is almost laughable given the current level of incompetence in that body. The ultimate result is that an agency might just have to take every punitive action through the court system. Which means I will now start training my 10 year old to be a lawyer.

I feel like you are lacking history on how we got to Chevron, what it meant and how it was received at the time, and how has been intentionally misused for the last 20+ years by administrations from both parties. You also seem to lack understanding of how laws are drafted and interpreted. Congress can, does and still can under this week's ruling provide agencies with areas of latitude that can include fact finding and regulation setting. Congress is largely only limited in its ability to specifically delegate by the "major issues" doctrine. What Gorsuch and other's are objecting too, is administrative agencies using their own made up magic dictionaries to interpret portions of the law illogically and illegally in areas congress did not give them such latitude.

It feels like what is going on these days is that people don't want to be part of a democracy, they don't want to compromise with the other 50%. They are good and all knowing and the others are evil and stupid. As such if one controls the administrative agencies you want them to rule, if one controls the courts you want them to rule, etc. Folks just want what they want and they want it force on society without democracy. Yes, democracy is slow and messy, but last time I picked up a history book the alternatives have a few downsides as well. And if we have a democracy, we can't have an unelected bureaucratic "theocracy" making all the important decisions in spite of elections (and the same is true for the courts).

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sounds like you are describing the entire Federal judiciary. Maybe we should have elections for SCOTUS?

Maybe throw out the 3 co-equal branches of govt and just have a single 9 person elected oligarchy. Certainly would be simple. But there is no reason to believe it would be more effective, more just, more attentive to consistency, or make better decisions over the course of many decades. Too many folks seem to just want simple and certain answers - and those people seem willing to trade freedom and democracy for such perceived (but likely false) comfort. That is how dictators swallow democracies.

 

[SAJ-99]

You are probably too young to have experienced, but folks had the same concerns about the Stone, Vinson and Warren courts. Some of the very best court rulings over the decades have reversed long standing precedents. Reversing precedent is not new. What feels new is liberal leaning folks being dismayed at times by a court they had "in their pocket" for 75+ years. They cared little about precedent or the warnings of doom from the other side of the political aisle as they used SCOTUS to reshape society for from the New Deal forward. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they pout and cry foul. There is nothing new going on in the court these days, it's just that some folks always assumed they would get their way endlessly to the detriment of others. And now they learn it goes both ways. Maybe both sides should do a little reflecting and turn our attention away from unelected judges answering all the key questions to making our legislative bodies work - as that is where democracy truly lives or dies. Without a vibrant and effective legislature, a court of any ideology that decides it will govern society via the bench in the vacuum, is just government via an undemocratic oligarchy.

I am aware of previous manipulations of the court, but didn’t live it. Consequently, this one feels a little more real. I wouldn’t be as concerned if Congress wasn’t so dysfunctional.

 

[SAJ-99]

Maybe throw out the 3 co-equal branches of govt and just have a single 9 person elected oligarchy. Certainly would be simple. But there is no reason to believe it would be more effective, more just, more attentive to consistency, or make better decisions over the course of many decades. Too many folks seem to just want simple and certain answers - and those people seem willing to trade freedom and democracy for such perceived (but likely false) comfort. That is how dictators swallow democracies.

Kreptonian High Council? I’m sure it worked fine until General Zod destroyed the planet.

 

[rogerthat]

Just what we need in this world, more litigation