[jhawk28]

Chevron has been zombie precedent for years. Do you really want the interpretation of administrative law changing every four years? This is just another example of the Supreme Court telling Congress to do their job which is where the political focus should be. If you want PFAS to be cleaned up, then get your congressperson to pass a law to have the executive branch do it. It is going to be much more effective in the long run.

[lukeschlather]

Do you really want review of novel harmful chemicals to require an act of Congress to stop? PFAS are kind of iffy, the science is very mixed and it makes sense that there's going to be some flip-flopping depending on the administration. But like if there were some novel substance like DDT with similar toxcicity, that shouldn't require Congress to step in and say "no you can't put this in the water supply." Seems totally reasonable that the law should simply specify what effects require regulation and leave it to the administrators to determine which substances have which effects.

[zamadatix]

Congress doesn't need to pass a law per chemical, they need to firmly and clearly pass a law to follow up with what they want that bar for review to be in a way the Supreme Court is left without a doubt of what the existing laws meant to say.

The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.

[milesskorpen]

This can be done without Chevron - Congress just needs to be more explicit than they were pre-Chevron, or else risk lengthy litigation.

[yummypaint]

This only serves to further hamstring any hope of slowing the climate crisis. Instead of climate scientists and experts making sensible small policies in service of general goals laid out by congress (i.e. Clean air act etc), we will have to rely on a purely reactive mess of lobyists and general congressional bullshittery tasked with implementing technical details at a layer of abstraction far from where those institutions are supposed to be spending their attention. This ruling was celebrated by the biggest polluters and environmental criminals in human history for a reason.

[cyberax]

> Chevron has been zombie precedent for years.

Where do you get this bullshit? "Chevron" was not a zombie precedent, it was very much the defining factor of the US administrative state.

[jhawk28]

A quick google search can quickly find how the legal community has viewed chevron as zombie precedent... Zombie Chevron: A Celebration [https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/10.Sun...] Gorsuch Says "Chevron Doctrine" is Dead Even Though the US Supreme Court Refuses to Say So [https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/environmental-law-adviso...]

[brookst]

Totally disagree. Administrative law has not changed every four years, and it is literally impossible for Congress to legislate every detail of every policy.

The intent of overturning Chevron was to do away with regulations, and it's likely to work. Congress could spend a month working out the exact right policies and chemicals and requirements for PFAS, and there would still be some loophole / discovery that a chemical is slightly different than exactly what was legislated. And in the meantime, the

This is literally like saying the Alphabet board of directors should have to write every product requirement for every product in every company in Alphabet's portfolio. Delegation is the only way large organizations can work effectively, and outlawing it in government is expressly intended to make government impossible.

[avalys]

That is not what the decision overturning Chevron says. The requirement is not that Congress now has to write regulation about specific chemicals or specific details of every area. It's that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves.

Nothing stops Congress from writing a law which unambiguously grants an agency broad authority to regulate (for instance) chemicals and pollutants.