The Supreme Court on Friday killed off a judicial doctrine that has protected many federal regulations from legal challenges for decades — delivering a major victory for conservatives and business groups seeking to curb the power of the executive branch.

The 6-3 decision divided the court along ideological lines. Its fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.

Known as Chevron deference, the Reagan-era doctrine required judges to defer to agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal laws. Now, judges will be freer to impose their own readings of the law — giving them broad leeway to upend regulations on health care, the environment, financial regulations, technology and more.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s the worst part. They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

    If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is. They are a court that can give themselves new powers.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power…If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is.

      Interpreting the law is a power the courts have always had; it’s their core function. It wasn’t until Chevron when the courts willingly gave a portion of this power to the executive. Now they are simply taking it back; a power they always had that the executive abused.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The executive has “abused” it to do things like stop factories dumping toxic chemicals in rivers.

        As I asked you below, how do you think our pro-corporate justice system will rule on such matters?

        • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          This isn’t just about the EPA, this applies to other agencies as well. Including ones that charge individuals for offenses that were lawful prior to a reinterpretation made by unelected officials.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            And it’s also about the EPA. And it’s about the most important issue in the world- climate change.

            And now it’s in the hands of a bunch of people who don’t even believe it’s real and if they do, think the emissions should keep happening anyway because they don’t give a shit.

            • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Before any new administration can come in, appoint their hacks, and throw off long term climate plans. This also puts power into the legislature (and by that the people) allowing for the enactment of environmental laws that have firm regulations that won’t disappear in 4 years. Enabling us to meet long term goals and commitments.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                There will be no long-term climate plans anymore, that’s the point. Judges will get rid of them all because the justice system is pro-corporate.

                • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review

                    When has that ever stopped SCOTUS before?

            • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s an especially egregious ruling since SCOTUS gave companies the same rights as people.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I heard no end to the complaints while Trump was president about how he was able to do dozens of things and Chevron was a big reason for them; the judiciary simply letting the executive do what they want via creative interpretations of the law.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It isn’t a new power necessarily. Judicial review has been around for a while. This just shifts back from when they granted the Executive branch a section of that power in the 80s.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, things will have to get worse, but when there’s no peaceful means of fixing the problem…

          I’m not advocating for violence, I can just recognize that they’re guaranteeing it. A much better resolution would be to amend the constitution to allow votes of no confidence, but that’ll never happen.