Chevron Deference Overruled

[Sactowndog]

On 6/28/2024 at 11:10 AM, Billings said:

Mixed feelings.  Judges rarely have the expertise to make decisions on much of this stuff

Judge Thomas must be having a cash flow crunch .  

[SharkTanked]

Another take...

 

 

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:17 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

I’ve seen your style on here by perusing recent threads. It’s a resort to a lot of name calling and personal attacks for persons who don’t hold your views rather than providing a substantive and thought provoking response.  I sincerely hope that isn’t your legal style as well but I am certainly well acquainted with that ineffective legal approach.  But something that they say about zebras and stripes…

I didn’t insult you at all, I said your answer is bananas.   Generally, attorneys do better if they’re not as emotionally brittle as you.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/29/2024 at 3:33 PM, Orange said:

I didn’t insult you at all, I said your answer is bananas.   Generally, attorneys do better if they’re not as emotionally brittle as you.  

Haha.  You can rest assured I’m anything but emotionally brittle .  But you might want to take another look at my comment…it was a general observation.  

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:18 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Yes.  I’ve represented multiple wind developers whose projects were entirely stopped because of threat of environmental litigation.  

So it’s your contention that environmental regulations punish wind power developments, and not oil and gas developments. Is this from the Scott Pruitt era of the EPA?

 

You are a stark example of why we need all stakeholders weighing in on these kinds of decisions. Not everything needs to be tailored to a development attorney’s liking.  We may need to, you know, consider the impact on human beings, wildlife, the entire ecosystem, etc.    weird, I know.  

[Orange]

On 6/29/2024 at 2:40 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Haha.  You can rest assured I’m anything but emotionally brittle .  But you might want to take another look at my comment…it was a general observation.  

Oh ok, if you say I should rest assured, I will.  You seem to be the authority on everything.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/29/2024 at 3:44 PM, Orange said:

So it’s your contention that environmental regulations punish wind power developments, and not oil and gas developments. Is this from the Scott Pruitt era of the EPA?

 

You are a stark example of why we need all stakeholders weighing in on these kinds of decisions. Not everything needs to be tailored to a development attorney’s liking.  We may need to, you know, consider the impact on human beings, wildlife, the entire ecosystem, etc.    weird, I know.  

Once again.  Your presumptions are nowhere to be found.  Rather than make blanket and unsupported statements, perhaps follow up questions may help your understanding.  Just my 2 cents.  
 

But if you’re really that interested in energy development nuances…wind development is MUCH more likely to be subject to certain federal environmental laws due to the federal nexus created through FERC than a typical upstream oil and gas project on private lands.  That is to say, you really can’t have a wind project without a viable electric interstate transmission line.  This will necessarily invoke NEPA for the wind development but much less likely for upstream oil and gas.  

[Orange]

On 6/29/2024 at 2:50 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Once again.  Your presumptions are nowhere to be found.  Rather than make blanket and unsupported statements, perhaps follow up questions may help your understanding.  Just my 2 cents.  
 

But if you’re really that interested in energy development nuances…wind development is MUCH more likely to be subject to certain federal environmental laws due to the federal nexus created through FERC than a typical upstream oil and gas project on private lands.  That is to say, you really can’t have a wind project without a viable electric interstate transmission line.  This will necessarily invoke NEPA for the wind development but much less likely for upstream oil and gas.  

Sure, and again, we live in a huge country with a (thanks to climate change) dynamic climate and even shifting watersheds.  Hell, the Mississippi River is notorious for changing course in hundreds of places throughout the decades.   
 

What’s bananas to me, is that you think lawyers are best equipped to make decisions about how agency rules related to climate, water, air, soil, etc., are to be interpreted.   Truly, only some lawyer would say that.   It’s arrogant to the nth degree.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/29/2024 at 5:45 PM, Orange said:

 

What’s bananas to me, is that you think lawyers are best equipped to make decisions about how agency rules related to climate, water, air, soil, etc., are to be interpreted.   Truly, only some lawyer would say that.   It’s arrogant to the nth degree.  

I am finding it more difficult to believe that you are in-fact an attorney.  
 

Chevron deference had little to do with how agency rules are interpreted; rather, Chevron deference (and whatever we call it now in light of the recent holding) is how Congress’s laws are to be interpreted and the proper persons to do that.  The legal question is whether the courts should have jurisdiction to interpret Congress’ laws as generally set forth in Marbury v Madison or whether the executive branch should be able to do that.  Under the recent holding, if Congress doesn’t agree with the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it merely needs to amend it.  

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/29/2024 at 2:23 PM, SharkTanked said:

Another take...

 

 

I read that one.  I've read a few takes. I still have not read the ruling. Still ambivalent, and most worried about real impacts on Rx and some other health regulation impacts.  I don't think we'll know a lot of things until they happen or don't. 

[Orange]

On 6/29/2024 at 5:21 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

I am finding it more difficult to believe that you are in-fact an attorney.  
 

Chevron deference had little to do with how agency rules are interpreted; rather, Chevron deference (and whatever we call it now in light of the recent holding) is how Congress’s laws are to be interpreted and the proper persons to do that.  The legal question is whether the courts should have jurisdiction to interpret Congress’ laws as generally set forth in Marbury v Madison or whether the executive branch should be able to do that.  Under the recent holding, if Congress doesn’t agree with the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it merely needs to amend it.  

Yes, judicial branch sayeth, and it be soeth.   I maintain it’s the height of arrogance to disregard properly delegated powers from Congress in favor of a fantasy reading of article 3.  
 

I think it’s cute you felt the need to comment on my “reputation” for going low, when you’re the only one in this thread to get personal.    

[gordonsolie]

On 6/29/2024 at 9:21 PM, AlpineSummer said:

I read that one.  I've read a few takes. I still have not read the ruling. Still ambivalent, and most worried about real impacts on Rx and some other health regulation impacts.  I don't think we'll know a lot of things until they happen or don't. 

I think a lot of the current analysis out is a shock type, worst-case-scenario type deal, with the little groundings in reality being stretched to their extremes. 

 I’m not too big into admin law (though Chevron deference played a part in an article I had published once upon a time that came out of a previously-enrolled seminar), but if does play a part in what I do, so I’ll be taking a deeper dive for my own sanity’s sake. 

I’ve made no bones that I think this was good, but I’ll be giving the opinion a deeper read in a bit myself.

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/30/2024 at 11:28 AM, East Village Poltergeist said:

I think a lot of the current analysis out is a shock type, worst-case-scenario type deal, with the little groundings in reality being stretched to their extremes. 

 I’m not too big into admin law (though Chevron deference played a part in an article I had published once upon a time that came out of a previously-enrolled seminar), but if does play a part in what I do, so I’ll be taking a deeper dive for my own sanity’s sake. 

I’ve made no bones that I think this was good, but I’ll be giving the opinion a deeper read in a bit myself.

Chas. had an earlier post calling this ruling the "happiest of my life".  This is more to the point:

 

[gordonsolie]

On 6/30/2024 at 1:40 PM, AlpineSummer said:

Chas. had an earlier post calling this ruling the "happiest of my life".  This is more to the point:

 

I tend to agree with that generalization…Chevron itself was full of nuance, but that nuance (and its accompanying 2 step test) had tended to fall into a mandate to mushroom, rather than any sort of nuanced analysis. 

[gordonsolie]

I’d say it’s basically a return to Skidmore deference, which sat in place around 40 years before it was overruled by Chevron. It’ll be interesting to see that movement in the coming future.

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/30/2024 at 12:07 PM, East Village Poltergeist said:

I’d say it’s basically a return to Skidmore deference, which sat in place around 40 years before it was overruled by Chevron. It’ll be interesting to see that movement in the coming future.

Logical.  I can't imagine no deference to rules interpretations of agencies. 

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/30/2024 at 12:07 PM, East Village Poltergeist said:

I’d say it’s basically a return to Skidmore deference, which sat in place around 40 years before it was overruled by Chevron. It’ll be interesting to see that movement in the coming future.

I agree.  The opinion is pretty clear that it doesn’t overrule Skidmore.  

[AlpineSummer]

One of the more detailed posts, I've seen. 

 

[gordonsolie]

On 6/30/2024 at 6:20 PM, AlpineSummer said:

One of the more detailed posts, I've seen. 

 

I think that’s a good read of the situation. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/30/2024 at 3:20 PM, AlpineSummer said:

One of the more detailed posts, I've seen. 

 

O man, I LOVE seeing people break down the “major questions doctrine” (lol) with a straight face.