Affects areas such as education and environmental regulations
Courts must exercise independent judgment in deciding agency's statutory authority
Limits federal regulatory authority
Supreme Court overturns Chevron Doctrine
The Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to federal regulatory authority on June 28, 2024, by overturning a longstanding legal precedent known as the Chevron deference. This decision will limit the power of executive agencies to make rules in various areas of American life, including education and environmental regulations.
The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, but the 6-3 Supreme Court majority ruled that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. This shift is expected to prompt challenges to the actions of federal agencies and transfer power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts.
The Department of Education's policies related to student-loan forgiveness, policing student outcomes at for-profit institutions, and preventing sex discrimination on campuses may be affected by this shift. The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has issued two rulings in two days that cut against established precedents and will hamstring the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests.
The fight to weaken the administrative state traces back to the New Deal era in the 1930s, when economic disaster had reduced the political power of wealthy business interests. Against that backdrop, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his allies in Congress created the modern administrative state. However, conservative legal movements have long sought to curb this power.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is a significant step towards achieving this goal and will be part of its legacy.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch voted to end the deference courts have given federal regulators in environmental, labor and other laws.
Anne Gorsuch, mother of Justice Gorsuch, had a controversial tenure as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Reagan.
Justice Gorsuch was gleeful in his concurring opinion and placed a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority, overturned the Chevron precedent and returned judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.
The current majority’s pursuit of a deregulatory agenda will be part of its legacy.
The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has issued two rulings in two days that cut against established precedents and will hamstring the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests.
On Friday, the six Republican-appointed justices overturned a 40-year-old foundational part of administrative law, the Chevron doctrine.
The current majority’s pursuit of a deregulatory agenda will be part of its legacy.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains two informal fallacies: an ad hominem and an appeal to tradition. The author makes an ad hominem assumption by attributing the conservative justices' decisions to their appointment method rather than examining the merits of the cases themselves. Additionally, there is an appeal to tradition in referencing the administrative state's origins during the New Deal era as a reason for why it should maintain its power today. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing regulatory agencies as part of an 'administrative state' and suggesting that their power is being deliberately weakened.
. . . the six Republican-appointed justices overturned a 40-year-old foundational part of administrative law, the Chevron doctrine, which will make it easier to successfully challenge regulations in court by eliminating a requirement that courts defer to the expertise of federal agencies in interpreting their laws.
Curbing the so-called administrative state has long been a central goal of the libertarian faction of that movement — and the wealthy donors who have funded its rise over the past half century.
The fight traces back to the Great Depression and the New Deal era in the 1930s, when economic disaster had reduced the political power of wealthy business interests. Against that backdrop, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his allies in Congress created the modern administrative state.
Bias
(90%)
The author expresses a clear ideological bias towards deregulation and against the 'administrative state'. He repeatedly refers to the Supreme Court's decisions as 'hamstringing the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests' and 'eroding the power of the federal regulatory bureaucracy'. The author also mentions that all six Republican appointees on the court came of age amid the conservative legal movement, which has long been a central goal of that movement to curb the administrative state.
Curbing the so-called administrative state has long been a central goal of the libertarian faction of that movement – and the wealthy donors who have funded its rise over the past half century.
Each decision turned on a different rationale, but both pointed in the same direction: eroding the power of the federal regulatory bureaucracy.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has issued sweeping rulings that cut against established precedents and will hamstring the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests.
The Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old legal precedent known as the ‘Chevron deference’
This decision will limit the executive branch’s power to make rules in various areas of American life, including higher education.
The Department of Education’s policies related to student-loan forgiveness, policing student outcomes at for-profit institutions, and preventing sex discrimination on campuses may be affected by this shift.
The Supreme Court reduced the power of executive agencies by overturning a longstanding legal precedent called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
This precedent required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes and had been cited in over 70 Supreme Court decisions and 17,000 lower court decisions.
The decision is expected to prompt challenges to the actions of various federal agencies, including those regulating the environment, health care, and consumer safety.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority stating that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, called it a judicial power grab and summarized her dissent from the bench stating that courts will now play a commanding role in setting national policy.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court handed a significant setback to federal regulatory authority
The Supreme Court has issued two rulings in two days that cut against established precedents and will hamstring the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests.
The Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old foundational part of administrative law, the Chevron doctrine.
