10/28/2024
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DECIDING WHO YOU VOTE FOR.
Hey everyone. I told you all we would discuss the Loper Bright case on Friday. Sorry this is a business day late, but it took a little more time than expected. To make this easier I am breaking it down into two parts. Today we will discuss the Chevron case, the case Loper Bright overturned. We can get to the holding in Loper Bright tomorrow and why its a dangerous decision for Americans. Let’s get to it.
As most of you already know, the makeup of Supreme Court changed when Donald Trump appointed Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. Those additions and especially the loss of liberal voice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave the Conservative Judges a majority. The shift in power has lead to reversal of years of precedent on multiple issues. The most popularized decision was Dobbs which overturned Women’s reproductive rights guaranteed by Row v. Wade.
But Dobbs is not the only decision that is worth discussing when it comes to this election and who to vote for. The Robert’s Court Conservative bench has been busy and in my opinion, in a way that is not good for Americans. So lets talk a little about that.
The first case I want to discuss is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision was handed down on the last day of the Supreme Court term along with the decision granting the President blanket immunity for acts that occur while he’s office. Scary, but we’ll get to that one later. Loper Bright over ruled a case called Chevron. In order to know why this is important, lets talk about Chevron and what that decision was designed to regulate.
Our ELECTED representatives in Congress are responsible to enact laws in just about every conceivable area you can think of. Just a few examples could be: the environment; education, food and drug safety; housing, health care, labor, law enforcement etc. Elected is the important term here, because Supreme Court Justices have a LIFETIME appointment. Meaning, there are no reprisals from voters for what they do.
We all remember School House Rock (I’m just a Bill after all). See below. Congress has the power to pass laws. While the Executive branch signs them into law and enforces them, the Judicial branch governs disputes. The only other limitation on Congress’ power lies with us, the voters. If we don’t like the laws coming out of Congress, we vote those Representatives out and elect Representatives who will make laws we want and agree with.
Maybe you ask, “Bill, wait. How do Congressmen make those laws? They involve science and expertise Politicians don’t have, don’t they?”. Excellent question.
Where we need expertise in matters outside the knowledge of the untrained, we have Agencies. Examples are the Food and Drug Administration; The National Labor Relations Board, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Environmental Protection Agency, The Food andl Drug Administration and hundreds more.
For this example, let’s use the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress passes a law like the “Clear Air Act” which is designed to limit pollution. Congress knows that actually changing an existing plant is harder and more expensive than just building a new, cleaner plant. So they draft The Act to make sure new facilities like power plants or oil refineries are as clean as possible. What that does however, is force companies to face stricter regulations and bigger expenses in complying with rules for new facilities. (It’s always about money my friends). BUT in this example only for “new or modified” pollution sources. You can see the argument coming. “What does “new” mean?” Does “new” mean a brand new plant? Does “new” mean an addition to the plant? Congress didn’t define “new” in the Act. Enter the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA issued a rule that allowed plants to be considered as a whole, which they referred to “bubbling” (Think of it like the entire facility was under a “bubble”, get it?). Basically, it said that if a plant or facility added something new, even if that “new” part polluted more than accepted by the Clean Air Act, that would be ok if the addition did not raise the OVERALL emissions of the facility. Chevron (yes, the Gas Station) says, that sounds good to us (cheaper). The National Resource Defense Counsel said, “not so fast”. This is basically what Chevron v. NRDC was about. Congress didn’t say what “new” meant. The EPA interpreted “new” under Congress’s Act to mean “entirely new facilities or improvements/repairs that increase overall facility emissions”.
Basically, the thought process in the Chevron decision, is that the Agencies are the experts. They are comprised with knowledgable people and experts who’s only job is to understand environmental regulations and their impact on the public and businesses. Quite honestly, Congress probably left the regulation ambiguous so that the Agency would figure out what it meant or should mean. So where a regulation/rule leaves a question or is somehow “ambiguous”, basically Chevron’s rule was, leave it to the experts.
So, Chevron in a nut shell: Is the regulation/rule ambiguous? If no, the Agency follows what Congress said. If yes, the Court defers to the Agency experts. That is, unless the Agency says something opposite or against the intention of the regulation/rule.
Sounds smart, right? Defer to experts. Not to Judges who have law degrees, not Masters in Environmental Sciences.
The Federal Courts thought so and applied Chevron in approximately 18,000 decisions between 1984 and now. That all ended with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright. Now, Supreme Court Justices will tell us what Congress meant. We’ll get to that problem tomorrow.
Thanks for reading. See you tomorrow.
Be careful out there.
Bill
Featuring a song of the same title written by Dave Frishberg. The segment debuted as part of "America Rock", the third season of the Schoolhouse Rock series,...
