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.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days 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
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days 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
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

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

          • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days 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
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days 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
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days 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
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review

                  When has that ever stopped SCOTUS before?

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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.