Saturday, June 29, 2024

QOTD -- Overruling Chevron

 

"The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

"The facts of Friday’s decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, matter far less that the legal holding. But they are worth dwelling on because they illustrate the conservative supermajority’s hunger to reach its conclusion by any means necessary. Loper Bright challenged a program, enacted under the Trump administration, that required the fishing industry to help cover the costs of federal compliance monitors on their boats. The plaintiffs argued that federal law did not clearly authorize the government to seek cost-sharing from fishermen. The Biden administration shut down this program and refunded every cent back to the industry, so there is no live controversy anymore. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court took up the case as a vehicle to target Chevron, a landmark 1984 decision..." -- Mark Joseph Stern, writing in Slate on a blockbuster opinion that was all but buried in the coverage of Thursday's debate (we covered it briefly here).  This decision has been likened to the illegitimate Republican SCOTUS's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, but having a more universal impact across all functions of the Federal Government (energy, environment, health, education, food and drug safety, etc.).  Stern quotes Justice Kagan's dissent:

It barely tries to advance the usual factors this Court invokes for overruling precedent. Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: courts must have more say over regulation—over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.

This decision, coupled with other recent decisions by this radical, illegitimate Republican court, is giving unelected, MAGAt judges unprecedented authority to meddle in the administration of  regulations meant to balance the power of corporations and other private interests and to promote the general welfare of the American people.  This can't be allowed to stand.

These are the stakes at play in November.