Well yes, we certainly aren't doing to create more actual housing. Guess we will just argue about what president to name our new Hoovervilles after.
It is mos def a huge win for lawyers. Take any statute that addresses any complex issue and see what it directly mandates. Pick one you think you know about. Say, the Clean Water Act. Unless it is your job or unpaid passion, it is unlikely you even know what even its overachieving purpose is. Then read what it specifically requires. Practically nothing. Chevron was the “certainty” that the right purports to seek. People with actual knowledge decided rules and regulations. The whole “deference” part meant the regulation was sound so long as it met certain QC standards. Laws are lobbied beyond absurdity on purpose. They are rendered intentionally uncertain so that particular parties have the power to bend them as needed, sentence by sentence. A lawyer trying to upend an EPA regulation per CWA had limited routes. Basically APA or some long shot Constitutional argument (also mind-numbingly unspecific.) Today, unlimited routes are now available. Including phony pseudo/anti-science this same crowd adores. Most judges don’t know the first thing about complex science, and why would they. Just as an expert on the atmosphere shouldn’t be determining policy for anything unrelated to the atmosphere. But now every judge is an unqualified authority on any science matter. Don’t like it? Pencil-whip a decision against it. Poof!
Nerds in an argument: "Well, true libertarianism has never been tried" SCOTUS: "Hold my beer" No doubt the wisdom of the market will guide us to clean waters and air, have faith
The SCOTUS ruled on this not becasue of bad interpretations of vague laws by these agencies, but becasue rogue agencies were writing laws and making huge sweeping changes to laws... Just look at what the NIL ruling by the SCOTUS.. The NLRB took that and basically "interpreted" that into saying that amateur student athletes can be employees of universities? That's no where near what the SCOTUS ruled on the NIL. That is just one of hundreds of these examples of overreach and blatant legislating by these rogue agencies, and the SCOTUS put an end to that.
For the sky is falling crowd, a bunch of states have already eliminated agency deference (including Florida via Amendment 6) and even from the perspective of administrative lawyers it really hasn’t been that big of a deal. It may have more impact federally because I think it’s safe to say there are federal agencies operating further afield from their operative statutes than most state agencies were, but ultimately it just means you have to argue that the agency’s interpretation happens to also be the best and most correct interpretation of a statute instead of just one that should be accepted because the agency said it and it’s not completely implausible.
This is more significant in name and what it presages than actual results. We haven't had much, if any, Chevron deference since Biden took over. What it presages is Republicans in the judiciary continuing to obstruct attempts of the Democratic Party to implement its policy when it wins the White House.
Those laws and regs were put into place for a reason: clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, to avoid having Americans living in toxic waste dumps, and at the same time being able to access natural resources for jobs, development, and to sustain our civilization. The trick is finding a balance between the two, unless you don't give a shit about clean air, water , and land.
Because those things are too popular for Republicans in the political branches to reverse, they hand the ball to the unelected Republicans in robes to do the dirty work.
One branch of government that is openly for sale, as long as you pay them afterwards as a gratuity not a bribe.
I wonder if congress could tack on details to be worked out by the bureaucracy to the end of the bills?
Do you suppose that is because most of the regs States put in are just codifying the Federal Requirements?
From my experience with the Clean Air Act, I can say that is how they generally do it. They provide a frame work, say, EPA you will regulate X, Y, and Z. You will do it this way. You will consider (or not consider) these things. Then they leave it to the professionals to interpret that, do the analyses necessary to support the rules, and flesh out regulations. There is absolutely no way congress has the ability to write the regulations we need. There is just too much highly technical aspects. This is not a good outcome.
No, in part because they aren’t. On the state level this hasn’t been program specific, it’s don’t defer to agency interpretations on anything. Now, there are a couple of possible explanations for why it really hasn’t been a huge change. One, is as @gator_lawyer noted, that there hasn’t really been much to Chevron in the first place in at least a decade (and arguably since “step zero” got added to the test in 2000). Another may be that some states required what is arguably a tighter fit between legislation and rule making authority to start with. But even on regulations completely specific to state programs, while it’s nice as a challenger to be able to say “it doesn’t really matter what these fools think it means,” in practice I don’t think you’re seeing a whole lot getting struck down that wouldn’t have at least been in serious jeopardy even under the old test.
One potential consequence of the end of Chevron deference effectively replacing judicial interpretation to deference to executive branch agencies could very well be the Mifepristone case in Texas. If the so called prolife extremists can find a plaintiff or a class of plaintiffs with standing and refile the case before Matthew Kacsmaryk again Kacsmaryk's views on medication abortions which are based almost entirely on his religious beliefs would take precedence over the scientific expertise of the FDA.
Oh, those pills aren't safe. They will find a case to tee up for this corrupt SCOTUS after the election. They just wanted to punt it until after with the standing ruling.
