Bloomberg Law’s Post

"A divided US Supreme Court threw out a decades-old legal doctrine that empowered federal regulators to interpret unclear laws, issuing a blockbuster ruling that will constrain environmental, consumer and financial-watchdog agencies. The 6-3 decision raises new questions about longstanding rules and puts more of the onus on Congress to directly tackle policy issues with new laws. It gives judges a broader mandate to rein in regulators when they exceed their authority. The ruling, which came in a fight over a fishing-industry regulation, is a long-sought triumph for opponents of big government. The court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 ruling that Democratic administrations had used as a legal building block for new regulations. The majority said the Chevron decision improperly transferred the power to interpret the law from the judiciary to federal agencies. Under Chevron, judges were required to defer to agencies that offered a reasonable interpretation of an unclear statute." https://lnkd.in/gNFTcpTH

The original Chevron decision allowed the administration at the time to bend rules to favor polluters; the ruling by the court today scraps Chevron to allow industry to skirt environmental regulations and benefit from a do-nothing Congress. Against the background of shifting, principle-free jurisprudence, the only consistent through-line is that the environment loses in federal courts. It is yet another lesson that we need State and City laws and policies to protect human health and the environment. https://lnkd.in/eJ5gVV8d

The overturning of the Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in how federal agencies interpret and implement regulations. This principle, established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has been a cornerstone in regulatory law for decades, allowing agencies considerable leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion reflects a tightening of this deference, signaling a move towards stricter judicial scrutiny over agency interpretations. This decision has broad implications, particularly in environmental regulation and beyond, impacting how laws are enforced and interpreted by federal agencies. It's interesting how this development aligns with broader conservative efforts to limit federal regulatory authority, as noted in your description of the Koch-funded involvement in the case.

This is a significant victory for the principles of limited government and individual rights. The decision reaffirms the importance of judicial review and the separation of powers, ensuring that government agencies are held accountable for their actions. With the Chevron decision no longer binding, we can now look forward to a more balanced and fair regulatory landscape. This landmark ruling empowers businesses, protects individual liberties, and promotes a level playing field for all. I commend the Supreme Court for their thoughtful consideration and commitment to upholding the Constitution. This decision not only strengthens our democracy but also paves the way for a more transparent and accountable governance. #SupremeCourt #ChevronDecision #JusticePrevails

Disappointed but not surprised that this Supreme Court overruled the Chevron Doctrine, continuing its assault on regulatory agencies. Interested in Justice Thomas' fossil fuel ties? Check out the blog I co-wrote with Aidan Bassett for Law Students for Climate Accountability : https://lnkd.in/er_4KBd8. "Justice Thomas’ fossil fuel friendships in general and specifically in relation to the Koch network raise significant concern in light of Loper, which threatens the future of the Chevron doctrine — a watershed decision favoring deference to regulators when statutes are ambiguous. If Chevron is overturned, expert agencies like the EPA may find it harder to defend regulations or alter interpretations of governing statutes, impairing their ability to safeguard public health and adapt to emerging environmental threats." Current news coverage of this issue: https://lnkd.in/eNxFgG4K https://lnkd.in/egTkDeKf https://lnkd.in/e47yeyqF Eric Bolinder, Ryan Mulvey, Lawyers Are Responsible, Benjamin Franta, Geoffrey Supran

The recent rulings on the Chevron Doctrine by the Supreme Court have delivered significant setbacks to federal regulators, drawing contrasting reactions from various groups, conservative judicial activists are hailing it as a victory, while climate activists see it as a setback. The trucking industry is bracing for what they anticipate to be substantial consequences following these decisions. Issued in late June, just before the court's customary recess, these rulings mark a departure from long-standing legal norms and established case law. They have the potential to severely curtail the regulatory authority of federal agencies like the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, limiting their ability to enact regulations that impact businesses and individuals. 🚛💨📃📑⚖️ 1. #ChevronDoctrine 2. #LegalReform 3. #AdminLaw 4. #JudicialReview 5. #CourtDecisions 6. #LegalDebate 7. #ChevronOverturn 8. #AgencyDeference 9. #RuleOfLaw 10. #LegalPrecedent 11. #SupremeCourt 12. #LegalInterpretation 13. #JudicialDeference 14. #ChevronChallenge 15. #LegalPrinciples 16. #JudicialReform 17. #LawAndPolicy 18. #StatutoryInterpretation 19. #AdministrativeLaw 20. #CourtRulings

Today in "This Is a BFD," the Supreme Court just overruled the Chevron Doctrine, a move that will limit the power of federal agencies. To put this in context of last night's Presidential debate: The SCOTUS ruling seemingly leaves it to the courts to decide on ambiguities in statutes. A lot of big social-political issues that are impacted by federal agency involvement -- think abortion, climate, consumer protections, financial watchdogs -- have lately been impacted by lower court decisions, and those judges are appointed by the president. The SCOTUS ruling upends a precedent that's been in place for 40 years, and the knock-on effects will certainly bleed into the next presidential administration and the next round of judicial appointees from the Supreme Court on down. What do you think? I'm more curious about the lasting long-term impact (vs the immediate).