Uncertainty in the Chevron Doctrine Void \ stacker news ~econ

Uncertainty in the Chevron Doctrine Void www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsIJGkZFphs

612 sats \ 23 comments \ @k00b 7 Jul econ

From a purely utilitarian perspective, Jacobs makes a compelling argument, which amounts to:

The Chevron Doctrine gave Federal agencies more power which homogenized national rules
Absent Chevron, states will create a hodgepodge of laws
Without nationally consistent laws, companies wanting to serve the country's population will strain to be compliant

As an example, he points to industries dominated by state regulations like finance (which ime is indeed a monumental dumpster fire ... every state has its own money transmitter law) and healthcare.

I don't know enough about these things, but if other industries end up getting treated like financial services companies, it probably will stifle scaling things nationally. Is he wrong in some way I can't detect?

view all related items

183 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jul

I didn't read the decision, so I might be off base, but Chevron isn't about the federal government being allowed regulate things. It was about courts deferring to regulatory agencies' interpretation of the authorizing legislation.

Those agencies can still write all the regulations they want. The difference is that now courts will look at the legislation that gave power to the regulatory agency when deciding cases, rather than just listening to the agencies.

236 sats \ 4 replies \ @freetx 8 Jul

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet. However I did a 20-min skim of the decision and here is my take:

Like most things, the decision is more nuanced then the headlines and hot-takes we read. But, I think your summary is pretty accurate.

Fundamentally, the recent supreme court decision was all around re-affirming that the APA was still valid and thus needed to provide claimants access to courts.

The APA (Administrative Procedure Act) - was an act of Congress in 1946 that mandated that the courts must be final arbiter of agency rule making.

Meaning, that if agency XYZ passes a rule, that it is the courts who must ultimately decide if the rule is lawful or not. (Prior to this recent SCOTUS decision, the agency itself was acting as the final decision maker - to which the SCOTUS found was in violation of the previously enacted APA law from 1946)

In a meandering way, this winds up indirectly back to the legislatures as ultimately the "rules from agencies" will now need "laws from congress" to justify themselves in future court eyes.

So yes, agencies will still be able to write whatever rule they want, but it is now up to a court to decide if its lawful or not....hopefully the threat of potential litigation will prompt more careful and restrained rule-making.

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

I'm not a lawyer but I pretend to be a member of the Federalist Society.

1984 Chevron was a poor decision written by Justice Stevens

In a lower court decision, Ruth Ginsburg ruled against the EPA because the EPA was not aggressive. Reagan hated the EPA openly.

From 1981-83 the EPA administrator slashed the agency budget by 20 percent.

Who was the EPA administrator from 1981-83? Anna Gorsuch, mother of Justice Neil Gorsuch

13 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 8 Jul

Who was the EPA administrator from 1981-83? Anna Gorsuch, mother of Justice Neil Gorsuch

interesting tidbit there!

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

The greens hated her and it was awesome, a feature not a bug

She was the first agency director to be cited for contempt of Congress.

A career EPA employee leaked agency documents to Congress, an act hailed by the media as a brave whistleblower (puke).

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jul

Well said. That's more or less what I thought.

162 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Jul

Chevron was pro business… ergo regulators are pro business. There is truth to what Jacobs said if you are a big business

Chevron was anti small business Ergo regulators are anti small business

Chevron reinforced the cozy relationship between federal regulators and big business

Is Lazard a small business?

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 7 Jul

Is Lazard a small business?

Based on the name alone I'd guess not.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Jul

The current CEO , Peter Orzsag, was director of OMB under Obama.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_R._Orszag

Lazard symbol is LAZ They are similar to Goldman Sachs

Jacobs joined Lazard in 1988. He is a member of the board of trustees of U of Chicago and the Brookings Institute

Board of trustees seats go to large donors. Brookings is a left of centre think tank.

118 sats \ 12 replies \ @JesseJames 7 Jul

He is right about one thing, a ton of litigation will come out of this, so some lawyers will be very happy and rich. It will set the precedence as a result in many case for years to come, that's good and bad, depends which side you on. I just can't wait to see what will clarify in the firearms department, the era of ATF is over and I for one am very glad. This will stop this "rouge" agency to create laws that were politically motivated and unconstitutional. This is one area where we all will benefit from Chevron being gone. No one will miss ya BTW...lol

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Jul

The defendants will be the administrative state. They can get a taste of their own medicine. The punishment is the process.

27 sats \ 1 reply \ @JesseJames 7 Jul

Touche. I like that. Interesting times we live in Gents, that's for sure.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Jul

The goal is to reduce headcount or eliminate payroll at these agencies.

ATF and EPA are two of the worst offenders.

17 sats \ 7 replies \ @BlokchainB 7 Jul

Why hate the ATF?

188 sats \ 4 replies \ @0277316049 8 Jul

Arbitrary rule changes. Definition changes. Things that they have held as legal for years can become illegal with a change of interpretation of existing legislation.

With how political the regulation of guns is, the broad authority to easily change the rules without underlying change in the legislation results in a highly politicized agency.

17 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlokchainB 8 Jul

Thanks I always thought ATF existed to stop gun smuggling

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @JesseJames 8 Jul

lol, They actually did some smuggling themselves (look-up operation "fast and furious")

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

Stupid Eric Holder

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms

I can’t remember if they were part of fast and furious the reckless plan by Eric holder that got at least one agent killed

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 8 Jul

One blatant example would be treating ar15 lower receiver as firearm (ATF rules). According to the US Code of Federal Regulations (aka the law), a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” which lower receiver ain't. Together with upper receiver (where the barrel goes) it is a firearm, but lower by itself it's not. A lot of people went to jail for selling a part of the gun which ATF capriciously (not legally) classified as a firearm. The list is long...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

You must hate the second amendment

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul

I'm surprised ATF has mandated AR15 name change to Evil Black Rifle

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 7 Jul

The influence of the Chevron Doctrine gives a high degree of distortion regarding decision making - hoping for a world of greater transparency to our government.