The Supreme Court Gave Itself Huge Extra Powers and It’s Becoming a Big Problem
Jan 13, 2024
auto_awesome
Discussions on ongoing legal issues involving Donald Trump, including his immunity appeal and the Trump Organization civil fraud trial. Exploring the Supreme Court's power to shape the law and policy by selecting cases and questions. Examining the significance of the Loperbright Enterprises v Raimundo case and concerns about transparency and accountability. Highlighting the court's expanded powers and the need to prioritize deciding cases based on the law.
01:03:43
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court's discretion in selecting cases and issues may lead to outcomes that do not fully address parties' concerns.
The court's focus on making policy statements instead of providing thorough resolutions undermines its role as a court.
The Chevron doctrine reflects the broader issue of power allocation between agencies and courts in American governance.
Deep dives
The case of the fishermen and government regulations
The podcast episode begins with a discussion about a case involving fishermen and government regulations. The fishermen were required to carry government observers on their fishing boats to monitor compliance with federal agency rules. The issue at hand was whether the fishermen should be responsible for paying the observers. The agency argued that the interpretation of 'carry' includes 'pay for', while the fishermen disagreed. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, focusing on the larger question of whether the Chevron doctrine, which grants significant deference to agency interpretations of statutes, should be revisited or abolished. The court's decision will have far-reaching implications for administrative law.
The Supreme Court's discretion and choice of issues
The podcast explores the Supreme Court's extensive discretion in selecting the cases it hears and the specific issues within those cases. The host discusses how the court used to review cases in their entirety, examining all questions raised. However, over time, the court's approach changed, allowing the court to only address the questions presented by the petitioners and even modify the questions itself. This discretionary power has resulted in the court effectively selecting the issues it wants to tackle, potentially leading to outcomes that may not fully address the concerns of the parties involved. This approach has been used by both conservative and liberal courts, and the guest argues that it may not be the optimal way for the court to function.
Consequences for parties and the role of the Supreme Court
The consequences of the court's discretion and focus on specific issues within cases are discussed. The guest highlights that parties seeking resolution before the court may not get answers to the specific questions they want addressed. Instead, their cases may become opportunities for the court to make broader policy statements or reshape legal doctrines. This shift in focus reflects a view of the court treating parties as a means to make policy, rather than providing thorough resolutions to individual disputes. The guest suggests that this approach undermines the role of the court and its responsibility to decide cases based on the law and the specific issues at hand.
The Evolution of Chevron Doctrine: From Republican Tool to Conservative Concern
The episode discusses the evolution of the Chevron doctrine in administrative law. Initially, the doctrine was beneficial for the Reagan administration, granting agencies discretion to reinterpret ambiguous statutes in line with the Republican agenda. However, over time, conservative views on the administrative state shifted, and there was a call for increased judicial oversight of agency actions. The debate centers around the question of whether agencies or courts are better equipped to make decisions on technical, scientific, and policy matters. Chevron doctrine is seen as an example of the broader issue of how power is allocated between agencies and courts in American governance.
The Legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Battle Between Agencies and Courts
The podcast delves into the legitimacy concerns surrounding the Supreme Court and its role in deciding major policy questions. It highlights the intertwined battles between agencies and courts, focusing on the Chevron doctrine and the major questions doctrine. The discussion highlights the influence of political interests on the court's decisions, and the impact of this on the court's legitimacy. The episode also explores the role of the court in deciding the 2024 election and raises questions about confidence in the court's ability to remain impartial. The podcast suggests that the court should refocus on its original role as a court and reevaluate its approach to policy decisions.
There’s an ever-growing queue of cases concerning Donald Trump headed for the Supreme Court that threaten to further dent the legitimacy of an institution that has tumbled in the public’s estimation in the last few years. This week’s show examines some of the interlocking issues raising the already sky-high stakes at One, First Street. First, Dahlia Lithwick kicks off the show with an update from Slate’s Law of Trump chief correspondent Jeremy Stahl about arguments in Trump’s immunity appeal at the DC Circuit Court this week. Next, we turn to a conversation with Professor Ben Johnson, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He recently wrote about the very long history of how the Supreme Court granted itself vast power to shape the law and policy by picking and choosing not only which cases it would hear, but also which questions it would answer when it hears those cases. Next week’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimundo are a case in point, and the question of questions also poses a conundrum for a court in a downward legitimacy spiral, as a parade of Trump cases head toward the High Court.
In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Jeremy Stahl to discuss the bread and circus of closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial in New York, and the next phase of litigation involving the former President and E Jean Carroll that gets underway next week.