What Next: Where the Supreme Court Can Do the Most Damage
Oct 2, 2023
auto_awesome
Jay Willis, editor-in-chief of Balls & Strikes, discusses the potential harm the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court can cause. Topics include eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rolling back the Chevron deference precedent, the implications for the federal government, the Loper-Brite case, the chaos of individual judge rulings, and concerns about misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's moderating stance.
The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court is pursuing the goal of limiting federal agencies' rule-making power by challenging the Chevron deference precedent, which could disrupt the functioning of the federal government.
The case of Loper-Brite Enterprises v. Ramondo, which aims to roll back Chevron deference, could impede agencies' interpretive authority, disrupt federal court cases, and grant significant power to unelected judges, potentially eroding democratic governance.
Deep dives
The Supreme Court's Conservative Supermajority and Its Approach to Cases
Despite the absence of prominent cases like abortion or a President's student debt relief plan, the current Supreme Court term is still significant. The conservative supermajority is pursuing its long-standing goal of limiting federal agencies' rule-making power. They aim to erode the Chevron deference precedent, which grants agencies the authority to interpret their own rules. A key case, Loper-Brite Enterprises v. Ramondo, seeks to roll back Chevron deference. If successful, it could impede the executive branch's ability to execute laws, resulting in significant disruptions to the functioning of the federal government.
The Potential Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision on Chevron Deference
The case challenging Chevron deference, Loper-Brite Enterprises v. Ramondo, centers around federal regulation of fishing off the New England coast. Fishing companies involved argue against footing the bill for government monitors on their boats. By challenging Chevron deference, the conservative activists behind the case aim to dismantle agencies' interpretive authority. If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could undermine the functioning of the government at large, disrupt countless federal court cases that rely on Chevron deference, and impede agencies' day-to-day governance capabilities.
The Conservative Legal Project and Its Implications
The conservative legal movement seeks not only to address culture war issues like abortion and affirmative action but also to redefine the balance of power among the three branches of government. By limiting Chevron deference, conservative judges can exert greater influence and overrule democratically elected branches based on their personal opinions. Critics argue that dismantling Chevron deference would lead to chaos, unpredictable litigation, and the curtailment of agency rule-making abilities. Additionally, such a decision would grant significant power to unelected judges, potentially eroding democratic governance.
One case on the Supreme Court’s docket could upend federal regulatory bodies’ ability to regulate at all.
Guest: Jay Willis, editor-in-chief of Balls & Strikes
If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you’ll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work.