The Greenlining Institute’s Post

This recent ruling by the Supreme Court to gut agency powers undermines the ability of regulatory agencies to respond swiftly to new social, political, and economic challenges. This shift particularly impacts low-income communities and communities of color, which often rely on robust regulatory frameworks to ensure protections in areas like environmental justice, consumer rights, and health care access. Without Chevron deference, regulatory agencies might struggle to implement and enforce rules that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of these communities effectively. Our work to build and protect our most vulnerable communities continues with even more fervor.

Overturning the 1984 Chevron precedent is critical to reigning in the discretionary authority overreach of many regulatory agencies, such as the EPA. While I understand and appreciate the role of the regulatory agencies, Congress and Courts are also critical to check and balance the influence of regulatory agencies. Congress has the most important role: to write commonsense legislation, focusing upon defined goals, such as promoting clean air and water. The Courts' responsibility, however, cannot be dismissed. The question to answer is "To what degree should the Courts intervene, checking the discretionary decisions of professional experts who diligently work to implement and run the legislative proposals passed by Congress?" In Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government...it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws..." In Hamilton's mind, a strong federal government, especially in the executive branch, was critical to deal with thorny issues, both foreign and domestic, and do so required a vigorous use of the "public administration," a term Hamilton used in reference to the "administration of the laws." Madison, however, although not oblivious to the need for a stronger federal government, was persuaded that separation of powers was critical to prevent abuse of power, and principally to protect human liberty. He wrote in Federalist 51, "The only answer that can be given is...that its (e.g., government) several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in the proper places." Among other things, the Court's decision in Chevron partially fulfills Madison's requirement. #chevron #scotus #madison #hamilton #federalistpapers #legislative #executive #judiciary

This #SupremeCourt continues it's path of destruction of precedent. Going to law school in today's day and age must be difficult for law professors. The teaching of precedent as a rigid guide is over as evidenced by this Court. Precedent now simply references "an old case that may or may not have been poorly decided." This is why elections matter. Today's latest decision overturning the Chevron Doctrine handicaps our federal agencies from taking actions to protect consumers, families, and workers from the harms driven by bad actors in the private sector. It's only the latest among a series of decisions by this conservative led Supreme Court with many more consequential decisions to come. #SCOTUSDecisions #ElectionsMatter #ProtectOurDemocracy https://lnkd.in/eNfQjavb

So disappointing to see decades of #climatepolicy and precedent dispensed with by an increasingly politicized #supremecourt. Key Takeaways of the Ruling’s Implications - For those who are unaware, the original #chevronrule stated that judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous. In doing so, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under then-President Ronald Reagan. - In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. - With a divided Congress, we currently defer to federal agencies to implement policy changes, including policy on virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in - After overturning this original rule, these actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place. - It is worth noting that groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation. While ruling political parties come and go, the implications of these #judicial decisions will have much longer ramifications. For everyone who can #vote in the #US, I urge you to think about this as you cast your vote, and think about the implications of having a party in power who believes a lack of government and a lack of expertise is the way to solve large, wide-scale problems like #climatechange. https://lnkd.in/eRWuDpN8

Another stab in the heart of democracy from the Maga Supreme Court. The Chevron doctrine was created by the Reagan-era Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 and has since become the most cited Supreme Court decision in administrative law. Under Chevron deference, courts would defer to how to expert federal agencies interpret the laws they are charged with implementing provided their reading is reasonable — even if it's not the only way the law can be interpreted. It allowed Congress to rely on the expertise within the federal government when implementing everything from health and safety regulations to environmental and financial laws. In the wake of the court's ruling, it's expected that more federal rules will be challenged in the courts and judges will have greater discretion to invalidate agency actions. Think of challenges to abortion pills, clean air laws, health law - anything that helps big business, big polluters to roll back administrative laws that restrict their ability to do harm ... More challenges to medications can now be heard by right wing Judges bought by superpac money ....their is already an example of that The Koch network successfully attracted Clarence For Sale Thomas, who voted against the doctrine, to speak at at least one of its donor events in 2018, ProPublica reported last year. It's unclear who purchased Thomas' flight to the 2018 event, as he never reported it in his annual financial disclosure form. Thomas has attended at least two of such events in past years. Essentially this is more power for vested interests, more incentive to buy judges and also the age of idiots continue - demonisation of experts and devaluation of experts. The roll back to the dark ages continues, meanwhile let is continue business as usual ... https://lnkd.in/gpzCt8wh

For decades, the court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council directed judges to defer to the reasonable interpretations of federal agency officials in cases that involve how to administer ambiguous federal laws. The precedent, established in 1984, gave federal agencies flexibility to determine how to implement legislation passed by Congress. The framework has been used extensively by the U.S. government to defend regulations designed to protect the environment, financial markets, consumers and the workplace. Supporters of Chevron, including environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations and the Biden administration, told the court that Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems. Overturning or scaling back the legal precedent, they said, will hamstring and weaken federal agencies and shift power to the courts and Congress. In a lengthy dissent read from the bench, Kagan said the court discarded precedent, unwisely setting up the Supreme Court — and courts in general — as the final arbiter on regulatory matters in which they are not experts. Kagan said that power rightly belongs with federal agencies. “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role,” Kagan wrote in her opinion. “It is not a role Congress has given them. … It is a role this court has now claimed for itself, as well as other judges.” A wide array of conservative advocacy groups have urged the court to overturn Chevron. But petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch has played a particularly influential role: Conservative legal organizations — the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance — that have received millions of dollars from the Koch network, founded by Charles Koch and his late brother, David Koch. Charles Koch is the CEO of Koch Industries and a fierce critic of federal regulations. https://wapo.st/4cJGu3L #environmentalpolicy #environmentalregulation #environmentaljustice

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in administrative law. The Court has effectively overturned the Chevron deference, which has been a cornerstone of administrative law since 1984. This doctrine allowed courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, provided those interpretations were reasonable. The Court's ruling indicates that moving forward, federal judges will no longer defer automatically to agency interpretations of statutes. Instead, judges will be expected to independently interpret laws, even in cases where the statutes are ambiguous. This decision could lead to a considerable increase in litigation as businesses and other entities challenge existing regulations that were previously upheld under Chevron deference. Supporters of the decision argue that it restores the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and prevents agencies from having too much unchecked power. Opponents, however, worry that this shift could lead to inconsistency and instability, as judges without specialized expertise in areas like environmental or financial regulation will now be making critical policy decisions. This change is expected to impact not just the agencies and businesses but also the broader regulatory landscape, potentially increasing the burden on courts and leading to more frequent and significant legal battles over the interpretation of federal laws. #SCOTUS #ChevronDoctrine https://lnkd.in/ghxXf5yN

Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned what has been known and relied on for decades as the Chevron doctrine. This decision is a retreat from longstanding reliance and deference given to federal agencies that issue rules and regulations. In short, the decision weakens the ability of government agencies to issue regulations on important issues that have been studied and researched and are well documented This decision will give a green light to industries and businesses to attack government rules and regulations by not extending the deference to the authority of regulatory agencies to do what Congress deemed them to have the power to do when they were established. The ruling effectively allows the courts to interfere in several areas previously regulated through government agencies such as health, safety, finance, the environment, wage and labor, and housing. Sally Greenberg, CEO of the National Consumers League warns, "A majority of the Supreme Court with little regard for stare decisis has overturned the Chevron doctrine, which effectively sets back consumer and labor protections 40 years. We are concerned this will erode safeguards for consumers, workers, and our environment." #ConsumerProtection #EnvironmentalSafety #ChevronDoctrine #SupremeCourt #NCL

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the Chevron doctrine. The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. What it means for the industry: 1) Regulations from the CFPB, FTC and other agencies will be more vulnerable to legal challenges. 2) Courts will have more power to strike down or modify agency rules they deem unreasonable. 3) It may become harder for agencies to issue new regulations or enforce existing ones without explicit Congressional authorization. 4) Industry groups will likely have more success challenging unfavorable regulations in court. https://lnkd.in/eAZawcjw

More on the Chevron Deference. The Supreme Court decision could remove government agencies' expertise from laws that affect everybody. It begins with NOAA Fisheries The Economist "Federal agencies, staffed by some 2.2m civil servants with expertise that judges often lack, protect workplace safety and respond to natural disasters. They keep aeroplanes and financial markets aloft. The government warns that abandoning Chevron would “threaten settled expectations in virtually every area of conduct regulated by federal law"" https://lnkd.in/eT_Gw9Yz https://lnkd.in/dqewgUQW by David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) "Federal agencies have both the responsibility and the expertise to administer the laws passed by Congress, to ensure that those laws achieve their intended purpose. For well over a century, the Supreme Court has given great weight and respect to agency interpretations of the laws that Congress told them to carry out. " This case could eliminate using expert knowledge in the formation of environmental regulation and protections.