June 29, 2024
You know how we have three branches of government? Judicial, Executive and Legislative? And they’re supposed to be co-equal. Checks and balances. Well — the Supreme Court just gave itself – the Judicial branch more power and at the same time took significant power away from the executive branch in a ruling that is going to change everything for all of us.
Stick with me – this is a long video but I promise it’s important so if you don’t have time to watch this now, favorite it and come back to it when you have a few minutes.
In a six to two ruling – the conservative majority just shattered the 40-year precedent of the Chevron Doctrine. Now – I know you’ve been hearing a lot about this already but I’m going to show you a real example of how it works so you can see how this is will apply to you. Justice Kagan wrote the dissent with justice Sotomayor joining. For the record justice Jackson recused herself from this case because she was involved in it while she was still a federal district court judge.
This bombshell ruling came down yesterday in two cases. (Loper Bright Enterprises vs Raimondo and Relentless, Inc vs Department of Commerce) both were questioning the legal authority of a federal agency to interpret laws that congress passes. Since this country’s founding — federal agencies have been responsible for taking the laws congress passes…. Interpreting them …and figuring out how to apply them in the real world. Well, lots of people and companies sue the government because they don’t like the way the agencies interpret and apply the law. So in ..a..1984 Supreme Court ruling, the justices created a legal test that basically says – when there’s ambiguity in a law and there’s a question about the agency’s interpretation of it – judges should generally defer to the federal agency. The theory was –these federal agencies are staffed by people who are experts in their fields and understand based on their experience how to apply a new law to the real world. Now – that doesn’t sound like a big deal. But what you might not know is — when congress passes laws – the process generally resemble something like this… I’m the big idea person – you – the agency – you figure out the details.
Here — I’ll show you a real example. This is the Clean Air Act it has been the law since 1963 but it has been updated multiple times. In the original law — congress basically said we should have clean air in the United States, and we should set a standard for what’s considered clean and should put some kind of cap on the amount of pollutants these big corporations can spew into our air. That was the big idea…but when it comes to the details like — what “should the” standard for clean air be…and at what level should pollution be capped, and how often should these caps be updated…congress the details up to the Environmental Protection Agency. Because lawmakers know they aren’t air quality experts – they just know they want clean air and left it to the experts to figure out how to get there.
Let me read to you directly from the actual law so you can see how vague most bills are written…you’re in for a treat – it says “the administrator shall, within 90 days … publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources [buildings, structures or facilities that create air pollution]. He shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. (b)within one year after the inclusion of a category of stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (a), the administrator shall publish proposed regulations, establishing federal standards of performance for new sources within such category.”
So when the EPA did what congress told them and decided which types of buildings, structures or facilities are sources of pollution and therefore should fall under this clean air act….you better believe the coal industry sued, the oil industry sued and everyone under the sun on the list came out of the word work to sue. They don’t want to be regulated – that cuts into their profits. — but in the past when they went to court the chevron doctrine would have been applied and generally –with exceptions – the courts would have said – well, congress’s big idea was they wanted clean air – and they told the EPA which is full of scientists and experts about clean air to figure out– so if they say those buildings, structures and facilities are the sources for pollution, then sorry coal industry…oil industry you lose.
But in yesterday’s majority opinion – the Chief Justice says – that Chevron Doctrine is over. He writes “perhaps most fundamentally, chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. The framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment.” This means in the future – when there’s a question about the sources of air pollution – and the coal or oil industry sue the courts are not going to defer to the expert opinion of the EPA. The case is going to have to be heard from both sides equally and the judge will have to make the decision. But this isn’t just going to apply to the EPA – it will apply to everything. Literally every law congress writes is vague – they’re the big ideas people – not the details people. Congress delegates the details to these agencies because they know they aren’t experts. So this ruling will have ripple effects on everything in your life. Healthcare, cars, food, social security, taxes, criminal statues, your job, your student loans…I mean I could go on.
People who support yesterday’s ruling say it is a huge win. Chevron had to go because these agencies were getting too much power…but in her dissent justice Kagan lays out the chaos we’re all going to be seeing and questions whether the courts should have this much power. “Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court.” “…agencies report to a president, who in turn answers to the public for his policy calls; courts have no such accountability and no proper basis for making policy.”…”as if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
Read the Supreme Court ruling here.
