Just a moment...
www.politico.com

The Supreme Court on Friday killed off a judicial doctrine that has protected many federal regulations from legal challenges for decades — delivering a major victory for conservatives and business groups seeking to curb the power of the executive branch.

The 6-3 decision divided the court along ideological lines. Its fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.

Known as Chevron deference, the Reagan-era doctrine required judges to defer to agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal laws. Now, judges will be freer to impose their own readings of the law — giving them broad leeway to upend regulations on health care, the environment, financial regulations, technology and more.

  • oxjoxEnglish
    40·
    6 months ago

    Because we know how well things have turned out when courts, such as the Supreme Court, rules on things it believes are “ambiguous”.

    Supreme Court Jan. 6 ruling https://archive.is/3YrYN

    The obstruction of an official proceeding statute makes it a felony crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison to “obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.”

    But the law, first passed in the wake of the 2001 Enron scandal, is vague about what constitutes an official proceeding and what conduct would constitute an illegal effort to obstruct one.

    the law, as originally conceived in 2002, was intended to criminalize the type of evidence destruction and witness tampering that stymied Congressional investigators during the Enron collapse. It was not meant, they argue, to apply to any form disruptive conduct that interferes with any act of Congress.

    But federal prosecutors and lower courts have ruled that the statute’s language is vague enough to encompass the type of disruption that brought the Congressional certification of the 2020 electoral vote to a halt during the Jan. 6 riot.

    the court concluded the obstruction charge was only intended to apply in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence. It doesn’t apply to the type of behavior that disrupted Congress’ certification of the 2020 vote, the majority ruled.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      482·
      6 months ago

      That’s the worst part. They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

      If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is. They are a court that can give themselves new powers.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        7·
        6 months ago

        It isn’t a new power necessarily. Judicial review has been around for a while. This just shifts back from when they granted the Executive branch a section of that power in the 80s.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        316·
        6 months ago

        They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power…If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is.

        Interpreting the law is a power the courts have always had; it’s their core function. It wasn’t until Chevron when the courts willingly gave a portion of this power to the executive. Now they are simply taking it back; a power they always had that the executive abused.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          212·
          6 months ago

          The executive has “abused” it to do things like stop factories dumping toxic chemicals in rivers.

          As I asked you below, how do you think our pro-corporate justice system will rule on such matters?

          • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
            71·
            6 months ago

            This isn’t just about the EPA, this applies to other agencies as well. Including ones that charge individuals for offenses that were lawful prior to a reinterpretation made by unelected officials.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              81·
              6 months ago

              And it’s also about the EPA. And it’s about the most important issue in the world- climate change.

              And now it’s in the hands of a bunch of people who don’t even believe it’s real and if they do, think the emissions should keep happening anyway because they don’t give a shit.

              • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                6·
                6 months ago

                It’s an especially egregious ruling since SCOTUS gave companies the same rights as people.

              • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
                42·
                6 months ago

                Before any new administration can come in, appoint their hacks, and throw off long term climate plans. This also puts power into the legislature (and by that the people) allowing for the enactment of environmental laws that have firm regulations that won’t disappear in 4 years. Enabling us to meet long term goals and commitments.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  72·
                  6 months ago

                  There will be no long-term climate plans anymore, that’s the point. Judges will get rid of them all because the justice system is pro-corporate.

                  • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
                    32·
                    6 months ago

                    This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
            310·
            6 months ago

            I heard no end to the complaints while Trump was president about how he was able to do dozens of things and Chevron was a big reason for them; the judiciary simply letting the executive do what they want via creative interpretations of the law.