Because we want dirtier air, dirtier water, and more plastics in our bloodstreams. Of course we do!
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority skeptical of broad assertions of federal agency authority, heard two related cases involving a fisheries regulation that call into question whether the 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council should be consigned to history.
Based on the lengthy 3½-hour oral arguments Wednesday, some conservative members of the court appeared to be leaning toward overturning the Chevron precedent, although it is unclear whether they have a clear majority to do so.
The court could also take a different approach and place new limits on when lower court judges can defer to agencies without overturning Chevron.
Chevron is a SCOTUS ruling that says judges should defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws.
And from Mr. Stern:
Throughout the morning, SCOTUS sounded hostile to the very notion that elections have consequences — at least when a majority of justices dislike those consequences. And the court’s right flank evinced little concern about tossing 40 years of stable law, encompassing more than 17,000 federal court decisions, in favor of the Federalist Society’s preferred regime. It appears ready, in Justice Elena Kagan’s words, to “blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another doctrine of humility, and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts.”
***
Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.
Comments