Crowell & Moring’s Tom Lorenzen comments on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the Chevron deference. Read more in NOTUS:
Crowell & Moring’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
From The Grist, an article on the #SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron doctrine. Originally a deference to federal agencies backed by experience in various fields, the Court ruled that this it affects the balance of powers issue amongst the executive, judicial, law making bodies of our government. My rather basic civics education taught: Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Courts interpret the laws. Some may see this an overreach for the Courts, but I see it as slap in the face of Congress. When you make ambiguous laws or defer to enforcement to figure it out, Congress has abandoned its duty to make laws. https://lnkd.in/eJvRGriF
The Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, gutting federal environmental protections
grist.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
We're on the verge of a whole new regulatory environment. The EPA is delegating regulatory powers to the states; Louisiana being the most recent example with the granting of CCS permitting primacy. On the other side, the courts seem poised to overturn the 40 year old Chevron decision that created almost complete judicial deference to regulatory agencies. Its going to be very interesting to see how various states react to a reduced role from federal regulators.
Conservative Supreme Court justices consider weakening federal agency power
nbcnews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York is out this week with a new piece discussing why issues like climate change that impact national public policy should be addressed by the appropriate lawmaking bodies, not state courts. Read more: https://bit.ly/3rUwumk #publicnuisance #publicpolicy #lawsuit #courts
Dear California: Read the Rulings From New York. Courts Can't Solve Climate Crisis
https://www.tortreform.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Strategic C-Suite Executive | Digital and AI Transformation Leader | M&A Strategist | Insurance & Investment Management Expert | Non Executive Director | Proven Growth Driver at AXA, Aviva, Liberty Mutual
Amongst all the memes about US presidential debates today 😱this news 🗞️ caught my attention. The US #SupremeCourt⚖️ has overturned the #Chevron deference doctrine, a decision that will significantly impact federal #regulation across various industries. Chevron deference was a legal principle that allowed courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting vague language in congressional legislation. This doctrine empowered agencies to address urgent matters swiftly while awaiting new laws👩⚖️👨⚖️. For businesses 💻🖥️⌨️, this ruling shifts the responsibility of interpreting #regulations from agency experts to judges. This change could lead to inconsistency and confusion in legal interpretations, potentially affecting areas such as #environmentalProtection, #consumerSafeguards, and #DigitalPolicies like #netNeutrality. In light of this decision #IMHO, businesses in US should closely monitor regulatory developments and prepare for potential changes in interpretation across various sectors. Companies may need to reassess their #compliance strategies and be prepared for increased legal challenges to agency regulations.
Supreme Court ruling kneecaps federal regulators
theverge.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Loper Bright and Corner Post will likely be invoked in numerous challenges to agency rules across the federal regulatory landscape. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/grcCzmw3 #BTLawNews #LegalInsights #LegalDiscussion
The Case That Launched a Thousand 28(j)s: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference, Allows Challenges to Long-Promulgated Regulations | Barnes & Thornburg
btlaw.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Thanks, Amena. After sleeping on it, I have two thoughts about the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on democracy. First, Congress could write unambiguous laws, with detailed explanations about how it thinks the laws should be applied. In practice, however, that would mean empowering unelected lobbyists and congressional staff to write the details. Second, while judges must provide detailed explanations about their decisions, the Supreme Court did not provide much guidance about the factors judges need to consider. In practice, therefore, future judicial decisions about ambiguous laws will inevitably reflect the judges’ political leanings instead of established canons of interpretation. I am afraid, therefore, that the decision will be viewed as anti democratic despite what conservatives now claim.
The U.S. Supreme Court has essentially yanked a federal agency's ability to interpret vaguely written laws, overturning its own 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The high court was careful in noting that the 6-3 ruling to overturn the Chevron doctrine doesn't apply to past interpretations that the court upheld, such as deeming CO2 to be a Clean Air Act pollutant (endangerment finding) that gave rise to a slew of regulations. It will affect agency actions going forward including those that have been proposed to date, like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s recent regulations to limit carbon emissions from power plants and motor vehicles. As I note in my #HotTake today for Cipher News, today's ruling essentially means Congress has to step up to the plate and do its job of revising or rewriting outdated laws that don't explicitly factor in the use of emerging approaches. The Clean Air Act, for instance, does have wiggle room to allow new circumstances (such as an air pollutant) and adopt technology-based standards, according to a tweet by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s John Walke (https://lnkd.in/erzBJvFA). Walke also said the ruling's impact will cut both ways. For instance, environmental regulations already in place cannot be rolled back citing ambiguity because it will go against the ruling issued today. The ruling will allow EPA and other federal agencies to use their judgment and expertise to write rules, but that expertise will given the same weight as those offered by those challenging the rules. The agencies will have to justify their actions and not rely on deference as it had under the two-step rigorous Chevron doctrine. It is an open question though whether a federal agency, read EPA, will even be allowed to interpret which technologies are considered appropriate (Expect a legal battle over that too invoking this ruling). The power to interpret now lies in the hands of the judiciary. Justice Neil Gorsuch in his own concurring opinion wrote that the executive branch had "usurped" judicial authority to interpret laws that is now being restored by this ruling. At Cipher, my colleagues Amy Harder, Anca Gurzu, Bill Spindle, Cat Clifford and I post hot takes and Top reads on the day's major news stories on climate and cleantech developments. Do check them out.
Agency deference - Cipher News
ciphernews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The U.S. Supreme Court has essentially yanked a federal agency's ability to interpret vaguely written laws, overturning its own 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The high court was careful in noting that the 6-3 ruling to overturn the Chevron doctrine doesn't apply to past interpretations that the court upheld, such as deeming CO2 to be a Clean Air Act pollutant (endangerment finding) that gave rise to a slew of regulations. It will affect agency actions going forward including those that have been proposed to date, like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s recent regulations to limit carbon emissions from power plants and motor vehicles. As I note in my #HotTake today for Cipher News, today's ruling essentially means Congress has to step up to the plate and do its job of revising or rewriting outdated laws that don't explicitly factor in the use of emerging approaches. The Clean Air Act, for instance, does have wiggle room to allow new circumstances (such as an air pollutant) and adopt technology-based standards, according to a tweet by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s John Walke (https://lnkd.in/erzBJvFA). Walke also said the ruling's impact will cut both ways. For instance, environmental regulations already in place cannot be rolled back citing ambiguity because it will go against the ruling issued today. The ruling will allow EPA and other federal agencies to use their judgment and expertise to write rules, but that expertise will given the same weight as those offered by those challenging the rules. The agencies will have to justify their actions and not rely on deference as it had under the two-step rigorous Chevron doctrine. It is an open question though whether a federal agency, read EPA, will even be allowed to interpret which technologies are considered appropriate (Expect a legal battle over that too invoking this ruling). The power to interpret now lies in the hands of the judiciary. Justice Neil Gorsuch in his own concurring opinion wrote that the executive branch had "usurped" judicial authority to interpret laws that is now being restored by this ruling. At Cipher, my colleagues Amy Harder, Anca Gurzu, Bill Spindle, Cat Clifford and I post hot takes and Top reads on the day's major news stories on climate and cleantech developments. Do check them out.
Agency deference - Cipher News
ciphernews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Loper Bright and Corner Post will likely be invoked in numerous challenges to agency rules across the federal regulatory landscape. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/grcCzmw3 #BTLawNews #LegalInsights #LegalDiscussion
The Case That Launched a Thousand 28(j)s: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference, Allows Challenges to Long-Promulgated Regulations | Barnes & Thornburg
btlaw.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Any time the current Supreme Court agrees to review a split between Circuit Courts of Appeals including the Ninth Circuit, the smart money will be betting against the Ninth Circuit's view and this NEPA case will not be an exception to that rule. I don't mean to suggest that's the only legal conclusion one could reach, or that it is one that the Supreme Court would have reached only a few years ago. But it is almost certainly the decision that this Supreme Court will make now. More here.
Whenever this Supreme Court agrees to review a 9th Circuit interpretation of a law, the outcome is nearly certain. This NEPA case is no exception. (via Passle)
insights.mintz.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The MN Supreme Court ruled today that the MPCA violated state law when it suppressed a federal agency's concerns with PolyMet's water permit during the public comment period. Read our press release to learn more. https://loom.ly/xkMRrMg
MN Supreme Court finds MPCA violated law when it suppressed EPA concerns with PolyMet water permit | Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
mncenter.org
To view or add a comment, sign in