[jason2323]

What is the significance of this

[badrequest]

Corporations will run roughshod over regulators and everyday citizens' lives will be measurably worse as a consequence.

[epicureanideal]

Not at all. They can still be sued, and lawmakers can still make laws.

(edited, originally mistakenly wrote "regulators" can still make laws, which is exactly the wrong thing)

[bitshiftfaced]

When Congress writes a law that establishes a new regulatory agency, they outline what that agency does and how they enforce the regulations. Inevitably as time goes on, new edge cases come up or someone realize that the law is ambiguous. Chevron deference established a precedent where the regulatory agencies were allowed to resolve these ambiguous cases or do things not specifically written into the law. This decision means that companies can now fight certain decisions they couldn't previously.

For example, one of the cases that led up to this was due to the National Marine Fisheries Service forcing fishing companies to pay their monitors' salaries. The law established the monitors and their role, but it did not say that the companies must foot the bill.

[tivert]

So basically, Congress is going to have to pass more updates to previous laws to reflect what the regulatory agencies need or want. Basically, fix the bugs in the core legislation instead of patching it downstream.

[cryptonector]

Not just companies, but also individuals.

[FDAiscooked]

FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards.

FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court.

A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open.

Factory stays open.

Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.

[Molitor5901]

That's absolutely 100% false. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA considerable authority to shut down a food factory if it is not adhering to regulations and laws regarding safety.

Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?

[mywittyname]

I'm guessing the next stage is to prevent people from being able to sue said factories?

[morkalork]

With hack judges like Aileen Cannon, good luck!

[burkaman]

From the New York Times:

> The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the authority of executive agencies, sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress. The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts.

[epicureanideal]

Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts.

A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.

[mywittyname]

So...bad.

I'm the person who prefers having regulatory bodies handle matters over a dysfunctional and ignorant congress who is political about everything.

[Firaxus]

I don’t understand this take, because the elected officials could have always made any law regulating this stuff regardless of this ruling. The fact they haven’t tells us something.

And this ruling will result in a lot of the common good (limited resources like fish, air quality, etc) being trampled upon and becoming the profit of a couple companies, taking these goods away (sometimes irrevocably such as in the case of over fishing) for the generations of the future.

We need our regulatory bodies to be able to move faster because by the time congress might respond it will be too late.

[braiamp]

There's a very good reason why technocrats are better prepared to implement policy and enforce it. They usually have vantage points from which they know the intricacies of the field under their purview, understand where compromises must be made and conversely points where it _should not_ compromise. A good administrator needs to have abilities to administrate without second guessing by a third party, unless it's demonstrable that their general objective (which every state institution has) isn't congruent with the actions taken.

Someone made the example of a factory that sells products for ingestion. If the regulator (FDA) doesn't have the tools to effectively protect the public of insecure foodstuff, who will? Consumers? Consumers will eat excrement if the price is low enough, because that's what's is available to them. Consumer power isn't vested in the consumers, it is vested in the regulatory agencies, since these have resources and expertise to recognize unfair, unsafe, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, etc practices, because unlike consumers, these have an advantage point of view, rather than the individual trying to find others with their same condition.

[pavlov]

Nice in theory, but have you seen Congress…? They’re unable to even agree to pay their bills, much less legislate on this level.

[andyjohnson0]

> A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.

A huge win for corporations and corporate freedom that one major US party and all shareholders should celebrate.

[mcmcmc]

How is it a win when the US justice system is so incredibly broken? This is a win for rich people and greedy firms who can drown their victims in drawn out legal action by throwing money at them. Jury trials are a zero sum game and are not actually that great at achieving just outcomes. They make sense for individuals, but corporations are NOT people and should not be entitled to the same constitutional rights.

[dyauspitr]

Elected officials are idiots and at the whim of their constituencies. They can’t make reasoned, scientific regulations.

Some lawmaker is going to call for dumping all PFAS into the local river for example.

[intended]

We should further defang the SEC. We really need a new round of crypto and mortgage backed securities.

[EricDeb]

I could not disagree more

[iaw]

> A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.

You've said this elsewhere in thread but you're making an idealogical claim with no supporting information. Congress is virtually non-functional, the court voted on idealogical lines, it only benefits one party to put more responsibility into congress.

So maybe 50% of the country should be celebrating?

I for one see a lot of problems with this ruling and the secondary and tertiary consequences it will cause.

[ekelsen]

That's one take...

[zerocrates]

Chevron says (said) that the courts should defer to agencies as the experts in their specific arenas when interpreting vague laws. This situation comes up a lot. It's quite common for Congress to delegate to an agency with only quite broad language, relying on the agency to fill in the specifics through regulation.

Practically, the major effect here is to reduce the power of the executive (and of Congress to delegate to the executive) and increase the power of the courts.

Like many of the Supreme Court's actions, it needs to be understood in the context of the years of history of Congress being in an almost total state of paralysis, so decisions that nominally "kick things back" to Congress are of enormous significance.

The decision tries to say that this doesn't affect the solidness of the many many prior cases that relied on Chevron deference, but expect a flood of challenges to regulations in basically every field.

[psunavy03]

If a Federal law telling you what you can and can't do with widgets was ambiguous, then courts were previously required to defer to the Federal Widget Agency's interpretation of the law as long as the judge found the interpretation "reasonable."

Now, if there is a lawsuit or other legal matter over widget usage, the court can take the Federal Widget Agency's interpretation of the law into consideration, but is free to rule however it sees fit on the precise interpretation of Federal widget law.

[rootusrootus]

We are now going to need to place a great deal more trust in Congress to legislate with nuance and understanding of the issues. Obviously the congressmen cannot really become that knowledgeable about every topic, so they will rely even more on advisors to write the legislation for them. We have some idea of how this plays out, because it already happens.

[Arthur_ODC]

It's another chip away at oversight protections.

The more things like this happen, the more the function of government (and business, and relationship between labor and business) will return to the way they were operated in the US between 1880 and 1920.

[okrad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....