Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Opinion: Trump initiatives might be foiled by the right's defeat of Chevron
Opinion | Trump initiatives might be foiled by the right’s defeat of Chevron
The president-elect’s lawyers are going to have their work cut out for them.
{snip picture}
By Cass R. Sunstein
November 25, 2024 at 5:45 a.m. EST
Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, is the author of “Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide.”
The incoming Trump administration is about to run into a serious obstacle. Ironically, the obstacle comes not from the left but from conservatives on the Supreme Court, who recently adopted a more aggressive, and more skeptical, approach to new initiatives from the executive branch. … Clio, the goddess of history, has a sense of humor, and she’s in a laughing mood.
Here’s the background. For nearly four decades, American presidents benefited from the “Chevron doctrine,” which originated in a massively influential 1984 Supreme Court decision. In Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the court announced this rule: If the language in a federal law is ambiguous, judges must defer to its interpretation by the relevant administrative agency as long as that interpretation is not unreasonable.
Chevron, as it is called, was a great gift to presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and their successors. Because of it, executive branch initiatives were less likely to get struck down in federal court. … Suppose that, under Reagan, the Environmental Protection Agency sought to interpret the Clean Air Act in a way that would decrease regulation and thus reduce the costs imposed on affected companies. Chevron gave it a presumptive green light. Or suppose that, under President Barack Obama, the Interior Department wanted to interpret the Endangered Species Act broadly to increase protection of wildlife. Chevron offered a permission slip. For both Republican and Democratic presidents, the Chevron doctrine was a protective shield.
No more. In June, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, announcing that an agency’s interpretation would no longer get deference from the courts. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it for the 6-3 majority, “courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.”
{snip}
The president-elect’s lawyers are going to have their work cut out for them.
{snip picture}
By Cass R. Sunstein
November 25, 2024 at 5:45 a.m. EST
Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, is the author of “Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide.”
The incoming Trump administration is about to run into a serious obstacle. Ironically, the obstacle comes not from the left but from conservatives on the Supreme Court, who recently adopted a more aggressive, and more skeptical, approach to new initiatives from the executive branch. … Clio, the goddess of history, has a sense of humor, and she’s in a laughing mood.
Here’s the background. For nearly four decades, American presidents benefited from the “Chevron doctrine,” which originated in a massively influential 1984 Supreme Court decision. In Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the court announced this rule: If the language in a federal law is ambiguous, judges must defer to its interpretation by the relevant administrative agency as long as that interpretation is not unreasonable.
Chevron, as it is called, was a great gift to presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and their successors. Because of it, executive branch initiatives were less likely to get struck down in federal court. … Suppose that, under Reagan, the Environmental Protection Agency sought to interpret the Clean Air Act in a way that would decrease regulation and thus reduce the costs imposed on affected companies. Chevron gave it a presumptive green light. Or suppose that, under President Barack Obama, the Interior Department wanted to interpret the Endangered Species Act broadly to increase protection of wildlife. Chevron offered a permission slip. For both Republican and Democratic presidents, the Chevron doctrine was a protective shield.
No more. In June, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, announcing that an agency’s interpretation would no longer get deference from the courts. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it for the 6-3 majority, “courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.”
{snip}
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
