Popular Information - Supreme power grab
Popular Information doesn't just break news; it creates change. Consider a few examples of the impact of this newsletter:
But today, this newsletter's future is uncertain. About half of our current readership found out about Popular Information through Twitter. But Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and renamed it X, has changed the algorithm to promote his own right-wing views and suppress links from independent publishers like Popular Information. That's why I need your help. Popular Information has 320,000 readers, but only a small fraction are paid subscribers. If more readers upgrade to paid, Popular Information can invest in alternative growth strategies, reach more people, and produce more accountability journalism that rattles the cages of the powerful. For thirty years, federal law has required commercial fishing boats to include a trained observer to ensure the vessel does not engage in overfishing or other prohibited practices. The law specifies that certain classes of boats pay the costs of their own monitors. But, it is silent on herring boats. For many years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) picked up the cost of the monitors for herring boats. In 2020, however, the federal government began to run out of money for the monitoring program, and the Trump administration started requiring herring boats to share the costs of the federal monitors, which is about $700 per day. The herring boat operators sued, saying that the NOAA had exceeded its authority. The Biden administration soon reversed the regulation and reimbursed 100% of the costs incurred by the herring boat operators under the Trump-era rule. Nevertheless, the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. There were simple, narrow ways to resolve the case:
Instead, on Friday, the Supreme Court used the case as a pretext for overturning a landmark decision, Chevron, that has been a cornerstone of federal regulation since 1984. This has been a longstanding priority for right-wing ideologues seeking to dismantle regulations protecting the environment, curbing abuses in financial markets, and ensuring the safety of consumers. Why Chevron mattersUnder amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in the 1970s, companies that modified or constructed a "stationary source" of air pollution were required to obtain permits. But a key question was left unanswered. What counts as one "source"? Is it an entire industrial complex? Or is it each individual source of air pollution within the complex? The Reagan administration's EPA issued a rule allowing companies to consider a grouping of industrial sources of pollution as a single stationary source. This allowed companies to create new sources of air pollution within a "bubble" as long as it was offset by reductions in admissions — or the decommissioning — of another source. The Reagan administration's interpretation would make the process of reducing air pollution slower because companies could create new sources of air pollution without going through the permitting process. An environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), sued, arguing that the EPA's interpretation of the statute was impermissible. The case, known as Chevron v. NRDC, reached the Supreme Court in 1984. In Chevron, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that when a statute contains an ambiguity, courts should defer to the judgment of the federal agency in resolving the ambiguity, as long as the agency's action is "reasonable." The Supreme Court found that the EPA acted reasonably and upheld its interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Over the next 40 years, the Chevron decision has been cited over 18,000 times by federal courts. As the Chevron decision itself illustrates, it is not a particularly ideological decision. But Chevron deference is a critical tool that allows the government to address important and complex problems. For example, in 1987, Congress, through the National Parks Overflights Act, directed the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, to "provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience." As Justice Kagan noted in her dissent in Loper Bright, the law left some important questions unresolved: "How much noise is consistent with “the natural quiet”? And how much of the park, for how many hours a day, must be that quiet for the “substantial restoration” requirement to be met?" Under Chevron, federal courts defer to the expertise of the people at the Department of the Interior who understand the nature of the park and what it would take to restore "natural quiet" — as long as the decisions made by the Department of the Interior were "reasonable." Other questions are even more technical. Kagan cites the Public Health Service Act's requirement that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates "biological products," including "proteins." A recent lawsuit challenged the FDA's determination that an "alpha amino acid polymer" is considered a "protein." Chevron recognizes that the FDA has the expertise to make these kinds of determinations, not the courts. Further, federal agencies like the FDA are accountable to the administration, which can be replaced by voters. Federal judges, on the other hand, receive lifetime appointments. "A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris"In Loper Bright, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, casts aside 40 years of judicial precedent. "Chevron is overruled," Roberts declares. This is fundamentally a power grab. Instead of deferring to the expertise of agencies to implement statutes in the face of inevitable ambiguities, the Supreme Court has empowered itself, and other federal courts, to do the job. "Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities," according to the majority. "Courts do." As a practical matter, it empowers any federal judge — including hundreds appointed by Trump — to strike down regulations by asserting that an agency misinterpreted a statutory ambiguity. Chevron itself is neutral because it protects the statutory interpretations of liberal and conservative administrations. But if your goal is to dismantle as many regulations as possible, getting rid of Chevron makes your task much easier. The decision to overturn Chevron is particularly remarkable because it was based on a statutory interpretation. Roberts found that Chevron deference was actually prohibited by the Administrative Procedure Act, a law passed 80 years ago. But if Congress wanted to empower the courts, not agencies, to resolve statutory ambiguities, it could have passed a law repealing Chevron at any time between 1984 and today. But Congress chose not to do so. But the Supreme Court decided to award itself this power anyway. The farce of Supreme Court nomination hearingsThe decision to overturn Chevron was formally made on Friday. But the writing has been on the wall since former president Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court Justices who were part of the ideological campaign to kill Chevron. Trump's nominees were all asked about Chevron during their confirmation hearings, and all deliberately gave the impression that they would respect Chevron as precedent. Chevron "is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis," Justice Barrett said in response to written questions. Barrett refused to elaborate in any detail, claiming it "would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals." "As a Supreme Court Justice, if you were to make this decision to overturn Chevron, would you consider the implications on all of the cases in the U.S., and the rules and the uncertainty that it would create?" Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing. "Goodness, Senator, yes," Gorsuch replied. Klobuchar asked Gorsuch about a previous opinion he wrote as a circuit court judge that criticized Chevron. Gorsuch insisted that he had not "prejudge[d]" the case and would "come at it with as open a mind as a man can muster." He then signed onto a ruling that stated Chevron was wrong from the moment the decision was issued. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a Harvard Law Review article in 2016 harshly criticizing Chevron. But during his confirmation process, he insisted that he respected Chevron as precedent. "Chevron is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to the respect due under the law of precedent," Kavanaugh wrote in response to written questions. "As I explained at the hearing, I have applied the Chevron doctrine in many D.C. Circuit cases over the last 12 years." Kavanaugh then signed onto the majority opinion overturning Chevron, which cited his law review article. |
Older messages
How right-wing media is legitimizing a nonsensical and nonexistent lawsuit
Thursday, June 27, 2024
This is a special joint edition of Popular Information and Aaron Rupar's Public Notice. You can subscribe to Public Notice here. On June 20, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced on X
Open for debate
Wednesday, June 26, 2024
Here are a few highlights from Popular Information's reporting in June: Today, however, I want to hear from you. What's on your mind? What topic… ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
One question Trump must be asked in the debate
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
On April 12, 2024, former president Donald Trump sat down for an interview with Time Magazine. During the interview, Trump was asked explicitly about whether he would allow women to obtain abortion
South Carolina poised to impose draconian censorship regime on school libraries
Monday, June 24, 2024
On Tuesday, the South Carolina State Board of Education will impose a centralized and expansive censorship regime on every K-12 school library in the state. The new regulations could result in the
Why Sinclair attacked me
Friday, June 21, 2024
Sinclair Broadcast Group is one of the most powerful media organizations in the country. It owns 193 local television affiliates that collectively reach 40% of American households. Over the last two
You Might Also Like
In Waning Senate Days, Kyrsten Sinema Screwed Workers and Spent Campaign Cash on Stay at French Castle
Monday, December 23, 2024
The Arizona senator's prodigious campaign spending in global wine hot spots can't possibly be related to the campaign she's not running, says an ethics complaint. Most Read Indiana's
Monday Briefing: Al-Assad’s final days in power
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Plus, tell us about your most successful New Year's resolution. View in browser|nytimes.com Ad Morning Briefing: Asia Pacific Edition December 23, 2024 Author Headshot By Gaya Gupta Good morning.
Gift of the Day: For the (Battery) One-Percenters
Sunday, December 22, 2024
“They'll never have to turn on low power mode again.” The Strategist Gifts Every product is independently selected by editors. If you buy something through our links, New York may earn an affiliate
GeekWire's Most-Read Stories of the Week
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Catch up on the top tech stories from this past week. Here are the headlines that people have been reading on GeekWire. ADVERTISEMENT GeekWire SPONSOR MESSAGE: Improve focus and memory with Thinkie:
Speckled Curiosa
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Today, enjoy our audio and video picks. Speckled Curiosa By Caroline Crampton • 22 Dec 2024 View in browser View in browser The full Browser recommends five articles, a video and a podcast. Today,
10 Things That Delighted Us Last Week: From Gap’s CashSoft to Airplane Footrests
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Plus: A design-y divider to make room for guests in small spaces. The Strategist Logo Every product is independently selected by editors. If you buy something through our links, New York may earn an
LEVER WEEKLY: Nurses And Other Superheroes
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Financial technology startups could ruin Christmas and more from The Lever this week. Nurses And Other Superheroes By The Lever • 22 Dec 2024 View in browser View in browser This is Lever Weekly, a
The Sunday — December 22
Sunday, December 22, 2024
This is the Tangle Sunday Edition, a brief roundup of our independent politics coverage plus some extra features for your Sunday morning reading. Our Sunday newsletter is typically a feature for
What I give my 5 (!) siblings every year
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Plus: Our favorite board games View in browser Ad The Recommendation December 22, 2024 Ad I gave my big family the present of a new tradition. Maybe you can, too. A sheet pan of holiday shaped sugar
☕ Clipped wings
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Is the F-35 worth the money? Morning Brew Presented By Timeline December 22, 2024 | View Online | Sign Up | Shop Skating at the Grand Palais in Paris. Stephane De Sakutin/AFP via Getty Images BROWSING