The End of Environmental Regulations/Chevron

[Elky Welky]

Just a heads up: SCOTUS just overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which is the precedent that gave federal agencies deference/rulemaking authority. This doctrine benefitted both political parties and their administrations during the many years it was the rule, by streamlining agency authority. It is one of the most cited cases in U.S. history.

What this means going forward is that the BLM, Forest Service, etc. can only make rules expressly authorized by congress. Anything that is fuzzy, or used to be deferred to the experts in those fields, will now have to go through our much-less-efficient congress.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/chevron-precedent-supreme-court/index.html

 

[nhenry]

Okay so let me finally come out as politically un-educated. Is this good?

 

[Elky Welky]

Okay so let me finally come out as politically un-educated. Is this good?

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

 

[noharleyyet]

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

I suppose whom the experts are ideologically and economically beholden to mitigates. Bureaucratic weaponization hasn't happened?

 

[TOGIE]

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

i probably agree with the "latter camp" of your assessment you find yourself in.

but, devils advocate and also honest question, how often are those "experts" being experts and not political lackeys?

 

[Elky Welky]

I suppose whom the experts are ideologically and economically beholden to mitigates. Bureaucratic weaponization hasn't happened?

Oh it has, but as I said at the outset, both parties have benefitted from this doctrine, because it really came down to who the president included in their cabinets.

Chevron was an environmental case, and Chevron, the oil company, won it.

i probably agree with the "latter camp" assessment you find yourself in.

but, devils advocate and also honest question, how often are those "experts" being experts and not political lackeys?

A mix of both. Some long term employees, some cabinet appointees. My bigger concern is about how inefficient this is going to become. Agencies will have far less authority to do their jobs, and we all know how effective our national legislature is….

 

[TOGIE]

Oh it has, but as I said at the outset, both parties have benefitted from this doctrine, because it really came down to who the president included in their cabinets.

Chevron was an environmental case, and Chevron, the oil company, won it.

A mix of both. Some long term employees, some cabinet appointees. My bigger concern is about how inefficient this is going to become. Agencies will have far less authority to do their jobs, and we all know how effective our national legislature is….

so, buy chevron stock?

 

[nhenry]

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

Thanks for the response. I'm at odds with myself over it.

 

[Moserkr]

From a now firsthand experience, my business is positively effected by the ruling. The IRS can no longer interpret rules and interfere with businesses because of their opinion, however "expert" it is (isn't). They must follow the law as written by congress. It will allow the companies we work with to use strategies that are, now without question, legal and beneficial to their businesses.

Id much rather have the alphabet agencies with their hands tied by the letter of the law instead of their political affiliation, feelings, or expert influences.

 

[Moserkr]

This will also slow down volatility in how fast rules can change, making a more stable environment for work and life in general, while putting more pressure on congress to actually do their job (shocker).

 

[Forkyfinder]

Thats a completely valid question, and it really is going to come down to who you ask. Some people don’t like the rule making authority of federal agencies, and will see this as a win for deregulation. Others are worried about how inefficient this will become, and how much more politicized it will make things that used to be squarely in the hands of experts.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

I am mixed on it - restricting executive authority to rule the populace is a good thing in a lot of cases.

The ability for the land managing agencies to conduct their roles will become near impossible between the court and legislature though...

 

[Elky Welky]

so, buy chevron stock?

A little too late haha. That decision was from long ago.

 

[Elky Welky]

This will also slow down volatility in how fast rules can change, making a more stable environment for work and life in general, while putting more pressure on congress to actually do their job (shocker).

I wish I could share your faith in the effectiveness of congress!

 

[VikingsGuy]

My two cents - elected legislatures should make law, administrative agencies should implement the law as handed to them, and courts should interpret laws.

As our democracy has begun to get sclerotic over the last few decades our legislatures have stopped clearly legislating and instead our system has leaned on unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges to twist, turn and flip the law to address a lack of perceived needed legislation on various issues. This has resulted in too much power for the presidency (both in administrative space and in the judicial appointment arena) that has diminished the proper balance of our democratic republic, placing too much emphasis on presidential election cycles, and reducing the more important part of a democracy - the legislature. Legislatures are the most direct form of democracy, most directly accountable part of our system, and encompass the broadest range of voices in our system.

If there is a needed environmental law, then congress should enact it with all the bells, whistles and compromises that would make it actually reflect the aggregate will of the people. It is not acceptable to me to hand vague tasks to career bureaucrats and let them twist turn and morph it over 30 years. Today's ruling is one small step to reigning in our growing unelected leviathan.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I wish I could share your faith in the effectiveness of congress!

Our current congress is a total mess, but I think Chevron has played more than a trivial role in getting to this point. Now, if a party (or interest group) has power in agencies or perceived alignment with the courts, they have limited incentive to participate in detailed legislative solutions on difficult topics with the other side, and instead settle into obstructionist legislative postures - knowing they will get what they want via agencies and courts.

It is better we stop the game and force congress to govern, with no easy opt out for one side or the other. Congress has been most effective over the years when it runs out of ways to avoid accountability.

 

[Elky Welky]

My two cents - elected legislatures should make law, administrative agencies should implement the law as handed to them, and courts should interpret laws.

As our democracy has begun to get sclerotic over the last few decades our legislatures have stopped clearly legislating and instead our system has leaned on unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges to twist, turn and flip the law to address a lack of perceived needed legislation on various issues. This has resulted in too much power for the presidency (both in administrative space and in the judicial appointment arena) that has diminished the proper balance of our democratic republic, place too much emphasis on presidential election cycles, and reduced the more important part of a democracy - the legislature. Legislatures are the most direct form of democracy, most directly accountable part of our system, and encompass the broadest range of voices in our system.

If there is a needed environmental law, then congress should enact it with all the bells, whistles and compromises that would make it actually reflect the aggregate will of the people. It is not acceptable to me to hand vague tasks to career bureaucrats and let them twist turn and morph it over 30 years. Today's ruling is one small step to reigning in our growing unelected leviathan.

I’ll respectfully disagree (again with an eye towards efficiency), but greatly appreciate the thoughtful input and respect your position. I’m also a big fan of the the legal doctrine that “reasonable minds can differ.”

I’d predict that congress won’t want this much responsibility, and could very well create even more vague laws granting broader authority to agencies, just to keep things moving.

 

[Moserkr]

I wish I could share your faith in the effectiveness of congress!

I have zero faith in congress and government in general. Anything to reign them in and slow down their recklessness is a good thing to me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’ll respectfully disagree (again with an eye towards efficiency), but greatly appreciate the thoughtful input and respect your position. I’m also a big fan of the the legal doctrine that “reasonable minds can differ.”

I’d predict that congress won’t want this much responsibility, and could very well create even more vague laws granting broader authority to agencies, just to keep things moving.

Curious - is your position primarily driven by a lack of confidence that congress can be functional, so that political theory is nice but unhelpful? Or that functional congress or not, a powerful professional bureaucracy is the preferable approach to governance?

 

[Elky Welky]

Curious - is your position primarily driven by a lack of confidence that congress can be functional, so that political theory is nice but unhelpful? Or that functional congress or not, a powerful professional bureaucracy is the preferable approach to governance?

I don’t think I can say it is an either/or. I am very worried about how much time congress currently spends on culture war issues and reelection campaigns as opposed to effective governance. On the flip side, I agree that powerful bureaucracy should not stand in for elected officials.

To me, Chevron struck the balance correctly, by giving deference when issues were unclear. Congress could always legislate if they disagreed with an agency’s rules or needed to for any other reason.

 

[nhenry]

So, does this also take away the ATF's "power to change laws?" Honest question.