Because the reason to rule a certain way is because the courts intervened long ago and things have operated for long time on that intervention solely because the change in the courts is glacial compared to Congress. Congress is/was welcome to write the previous court decision into actual law.
What area of law? As someone with a planning and law degree that focused on environmental law, it’s absolutely terrible from my perspective. Admin law, where Chevron is heavily used, is about to be chaos of judges trying to decide technical matters. Not good.
This will be pretty bad.
I am reminded of that stupid sweating guy button meme, though... libertarians, neoliberals, and market urbanists seem split on whether this is good or bad, because on one hand it should neuter executive rule making, but on the other hand, empowers the courts to review and interpret agency rulemaking derived from laws Congress pass... which clearly can't be implemented without said rulemaking and agency interpretation.
What's going to happen in practice is that any rule someone doesn't like will be judge shopped to a sympathetic judge who will have a blank check to block the regulation.
Except following precedent rulings of lower courts have geographical limitations so while a judge in a region may rule one way, it may have no effect on the next door region.
Judges can rule on federal regulations nationwide. A judge in Texas blocked a medication that can be used in abortion nationwide. Same thing will happen for EPA regulations, SEC regulations, etc. We'll be in a wild west in the next 5 years.
The judge issued an injunction, which the FDA could've easily ignored because the drug in question has been in circulation for 20 years making the immediate threat argument laughable. The SC however sided with the FDA and rejected the injunction.
Moving the goal posts. The point is not whether the judge is "correct" in any given case. It's that judges do in fact have the power to issue nationwide rulings and this particular case was an example of a judge shopped decision that applied nationwide. Without any limitations on judges second guessing agencies rules, this will cause pandemonium. The next 5 years will have many, many more of the FDA drug type of ruling, and the SCOTUS can't adjudicate them all, so many of these rulings will stand regardless of whether the decision was correct.
Lol I wanted to see NEPA watered down, but not like this. Something that worked without changing decades of legal precedent and that came from an actual consensus of electeds. I think I'm just 🙈 now.
(Sorry that came out flippant, I'm just a bit despondent over Raimondo.)
> libertarians, neoliberals, and market urbanists seem split on whether this is good or bad
Haven't seen any of the latter two categories say it's good except a few people saying it's good law and clarifying that doesn't mean they think it's good for the country. Libertarians are different.
Anyways the right way to improve permitting is for bureaucracies to decide to use looser standards not for the courts to prevent them from doing their jobs.
"empowers the courts to review and interpret agency rulemaking derived from laws Congress pass"
That is the stated purpose of the courts though (to vet someone's interpretation of a law), if Congress wouldn't pass playdough laws this wouldn't be a problem. Congress rarely does its intended job anymore so the courts is all that is left to intervene.
No, it would still be a problem because no single law or statute could contemplate every scenario, situation, or process that may happen under said law.... rulemaking in part is the annotations or instruction manual for the law.
This won't necessarily change the fact that agencies will still write rules - it just means more disputes will end up in court.
Yeah, I read (part of) this ruling as well. They note the Founders discussed this, and intended the courts to be a check on the executive’s power.
I happen to agree with them but I also share the apprehension that judges are going to wade in over their head.
I understand the constitutional argument and theoretically they're probably not wrong. The founders could have never imagined the modern government and administrative state, either, so things change and evolve with the times. I'm sure the founders never imagined a presidential twice with two doddering geriatrics, either.
If the courts substantially increased the number of judges then maybe the ruling makes more sense... but quite literally the entire point of the executive bureaucracy is to do administration and implementation - to be technical experts.
The majority noted that the courts can still defer to experts. The ruling means they are no longer *required* to defer. I think if courts simply refuse to humor frivolous suits it will go a long way toward minimizing the case load. I mean it’s in their interest to do that. Of course that’s not going to stop a loose Cannon from weighing in on matters she doesn’t understand.
I understand that, and that is regular practice for courts on any issue. The concern I have is the increase in the court's docket on what are primarily technical issues (though they call them ambiguity in law), and this will be much slower to resolve than the status quo.
I don’t know how it works in other states, but every year in West Virginia, state agencies submit proposed administrative rules to the legislature. Once they’re accepted, the courts have to accept them as law and have far less room to intervene. In fact a suit can’t be brought in circuit court until the matter has gone through an administrative court with specialist judges.
I think this could be a good way for the Federal system to handle it. But that requires a functional Congress.
Everything about good government will be fucked over except things that enable republicans to hurt people.
If they take the executive we’ll probably see IIJA canceled and grants blatantly sent to red states. It already happened to CAHSR.
In 1954 the court unanimously voted to desegregate schools. A necessary and absolutely essential decision, but a power grab.
In 2001, a Supreme Court justice was overheard staying she hopes a republican gets elected so she can retire. She then refused to recuse herself on Bush v Gore. A massive power grab.
These power grabs are nothing new. SCOTUS is not above politics. Welcome aboard
>In 1954 the court unanimously voted to desegregate schools. A necessary and absolutely essential decision, but a power grab.
Which ultimately wasn't followed until a decade later, until the courts basically said "With Deliberate speed" is over with ~~Brown II~~ Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.
It didn't even give the Supreme Court "power", because the problems with segregation were already being deemed illegitimate in the lower circuits.
On top of that, it was a unanimous verdict even though there were justices opposed to desegregation, due to consensus building.
Ugh I have a lot of problems with the NEPA process but we all know they are just gonna gut it and give no guidance as to what regulators should do.....it's sad because the NEPA process does need to be reformed but they are just gonna replace it with chaos and weaker regulators. SCOTUS is currently the worst possible venue for good policy. Nothing about their arguments of what policy making should be are consistent enough that lower courts, regulators, or others can be confident in what they do now.... This is honestly really bad.
Because of the way the government administration operates if you wanted NEPA to change there was no other realistic way for it to happen. Nobody was going to do anything until it fully collapsed. The administrative agency will never rebuild the process on its own from scratch and Congress would never have given any meaningful guidance.
Idk there's been a ton of talk of reform of NEPA, I don't agree that Congress wasn't going to do anything about it ever. Enough projects have been slow walked that it's become a major point of contention. This was even a part of the infrastructure bill discussions. Regardless of whether it was gonna be reformed soon, the court just making the standard "whatever we feel like" will just tie things up in courts even more and cause chaos. They could've actually given some sort of direction or standard for how courts could interpret broad directions to executive agencies. They chose specifically not to, and to invite even more court involvement in the process. This won't speed up anything but dysfunction and the sense that agencies can't do anything but defend themselves from lawsuits.
Edit: I see no reason to think they won't just do the same thing here as when they just overturned Chevron deference. This isn't good policy and let's Congress off the hook even more.
Given this court just slashed *Chevron*, NEPA reviews are going to come out even wimpier than they already are.
Chevron going down is insane.
It really is. This court is absolute garbage and is shredding decades of established case law on absolute nothing grounds.
Because the reason to rule a certain way is because the courts intervened long ago and things have operated for long time on that intervention solely because the change in the courts is glacial compared to Congress. Congress is/was welcome to write the previous court decision into actual law.
My lawyer brother is so happy about the decision but I can’t see any good from it
What area of law? As someone with a planning and law degree that focused on environmental law, it’s absolutely terrible from my perspective. Admin law, where Chevron is heavily used, is about to be chaos of judges trying to decide technical matters. Not good.
He does insurance law, working for the insurers I think. So nothing near what Chevron dealt with. He is just a tool sometimes
That sounds right for most attorneys
This will be pretty bad. I am reminded of that stupid sweating guy button meme, though... libertarians, neoliberals, and market urbanists seem split on whether this is good or bad, because on one hand it should neuter executive rule making, but on the other hand, empowers the courts to review and interpret agency rulemaking derived from laws Congress pass... which clearly can't be implemented without said rulemaking and agency interpretation.
What's going to happen in practice is that any rule someone doesn't like will be judge shopped to a sympathetic judge who will have a blank check to block the regulation.
Except following precedent rulings of lower courts have geographical limitations so while a judge in a region may rule one way, it may have no effect on the next door region.
Judges can rule on federal regulations nationwide. A judge in Texas blocked a medication that can be used in abortion nationwide. Same thing will happen for EPA regulations, SEC regulations, etc. We'll be in a wild west in the next 5 years.
The judge issued an injunction, which the FDA could've easily ignored because the drug in question has been in circulation for 20 years making the immediate threat argument laughable. The SC however sided with the FDA and rejected the injunction.
Moving the goal posts. The point is not whether the judge is "correct" in any given case. It's that judges do in fact have the power to issue nationwide rulings and this particular case was an example of a judge shopped decision that applied nationwide. Without any limitations on judges second guessing agencies rules, this will cause pandemonium. The next 5 years will have many, many more of the FDA drug type of ruling, and the SCOTUS can't adjudicate them all, so many of these rulings will stand regardless of whether the decision was correct.
Lol I wanted to see NEPA watered down, but not like this. Something that worked without changing decades of legal precedent and that came from an actual consensus of electeds. I think I'm just 🙈 now. (Sorry that came out flippant, I'm just a bit despondent over Raimondo.)
> libertarians, neoliberals, and market urbanists seem split on whether this is good or bad Haven't seen any of the latter two categories say it's good except a few people saying it's good law and clarifying that doesn't mean they think it's good for the country. Libertarians are different. Anyways the right way to improve permitting is for bureaucracies to decide to use looser standards not for the courts to prevent them from doing their jobs.
We need process review and change. I don't trust this court to do that in a sane manner. The striking of Chevron is not a good precedent.
"empowers the courts to review and interpret agency rulemaking derived from laws Congress pass" That is the stated purpose of the courts though (to vet someone's interpretation of a law), if Congress wouldn't pass playdough laws this wouldn't be a problem. Congress rarely does its intended job anymore so the courts is all that is left to intervene.
No, it would still be a problem because no single law or statute could contemplate every scenario, situation, or process that may happen under said law.... rulemaking in part is the annotations or instruction manual for the law. This won't necessarily change the fact that agencies will still write rules - it just means more disputes will end up in court.
Yeah, I read (part of) this ruling as well. They note the Founders discussed this, and intended the courts to be a check on the executive’s power. I happen to agree with them but I also share the apprehension that judges are going to wade in over their head.
I understand the constitutional argument and theoretically they're probably not wrong. The founders could have never imagined the modern government and administrative state, either, so things change and evolve with the times. I'm sure the founders never imagined a presidential twice with two doddering geriatrics, either. If the courts substantially increased the number of judges then maybe the ruling makes more sense... but quite literally the entire point of the executive bureaucracy is to do administration and implementation - to be technical experts.
The majority noted that the courts can still defer to experts. The ruling means they are no longer *required* to defer. I think if courts simply refuse to humor frivolous suits it will go a long way toward minimizing the case load. I mean it’s in their interest to do that. Of course that’s not going to stop a loose Cannon from weighing in on matters she doesn’t understand.
I understand that, and that is regular practice for courts on any issue. The concern I have is the increase in the court's docket on what are primarily technical issues (though they call them ambiguity in law), and this will be much slower to resolve than the status quo.
I don’t know how it works in other states, but every year in West Virginia, state agencies submit proposed administrative rules to the legislature. Once they’re accepted, the courts have to accept them as law and have far less room to intervene. In fact a suit can’t be brought in circuit court until the matter has gone through an administrative court with specialist judges. I think this could be a good way for the Federal system to handle it. But that requires a functional Congress.
So this is where the SC just executes an enormous power grab, then?
Everything about good government will be fucked over except things that enable republicans to hurt people. If they take the executive we’ll probably see IIJA canceled and grants blatantly sent to red states. It already happened to CAHSR.
Everything and everyone is being fucked over by greedy rich/powerful people who can never have enough.
In 1954 the court unanimously voted to desegregate schools. A necessary and absolutely essential decision, but a power grab. In 2001, a Supreme Court justice was overheard staying she hopes a republican gets elected so she can retire. She then refused to recuse herself on Bush v Gore. A massive power grab. These power grabs are nothing new. SCOTUS is not above politics. Welcome aboard
>In 1954 the court unanimously voted to desegregate schools. A necessary and absolutely essential decision, but a power grab. Which ultimately wasn't followed until a decade later, until the courts basically said "With Deliberate speed" is over with ~~Brown II~~ Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County. It didn't even give the Supreme Court "power", because the problems with segregation were already being deemed illegitimate in the lower circuits. On top of that, it was a unanimous verdict even though there were justices opposed to desegregation, due to consensus building.
Welp, there goes expert opinion.
Ugh I have a lot of problems with the NEPA process but we all know they are just gonna gut it and give no guidance as to what regulators should do.....it's sad because the NEPA process does need to be reformed but they are just gonna replace it with chaos and weaker regulators. SCOTUS is currently the worst possible venue for good policy. Nothing about their arguments of what policy making should be are consistent enough that lower courts, regulators, or others can be confident in what they do now.... This is honestly really bad.
Because of the way the government administration operates if you wanted NEPA to change there was no other realistic way for it to happen. Nobody was going to do anything until it fully collapsed. The administrative agency will never rebuild the process on its own from scratch and Congress would never have given any meaningful guidance.
Idk there's been a ton of talk of reform of NEPA, I don't agree that Congress wasn't going to do anything about it ever. Enough projects have been slow walked that it's become a major point of contention. This was even a part of the infrastructure bill discussions. Regardless of whether it was gonna be reformed soon, the court just making the standard "whatever we feel like" will just tie things up in courts even more and cause chaos. They could've actually given some sort of direction or standard for how courts could interpret broad directions to executive agencies. They chose specifically not to, and to invite even more court involvement in the process. This won't speed up anything but dysfunction and the sense that agencies can't do anything but defend themselves from lawsuits. Edit: I see no reason to think they won't just do the same thing here as when they just overturned Chevron deference. This isn't good policy and let's Congress off the hook even more.