Katie Phang Profile picture
Jun 28 6 tweets 1 min read Read on X
The second SCOTUS opinion today: Loper v. Raimondo (the Chevron Doctrine).
Chevron is overruled.
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron is overruled.
The question in this case was whether to overrule the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
This Loper decision is decided with Relentless, Inc., et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al.
The vote is 6-3 (although 6-2 in Loper-Bright because Jackson is recused). Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson as it applies to Relentless, from which she is not recused.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Katie Phang

Katie Phang Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KatiePhang

Jun 28
Trump: I agree with SCOTUS’ decision to allow the abortion pill and I won’t do anything about that.
Trump: I believe in abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother.
Biden: “I support Roe v. Wade!”
Read 5 tweets
Jun 27
JUST IN: Judge Cannon entering an Order denying Trump's motion for a Franks hearing, but reserving ruling on the balance of his "Motion for Relief Relating to the Mar-a-lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege."
Cannon finds that Trump has not made the requisite showing that the search warrant affidavit contains "any material false statements or omissions." As such, he doesn't get a Franks hearing.
However, Cannon claims that the rest of Trump's motion cannot be resolved based "on the current record" and so she is ordering an "evidentiary suppression hearing to be scheduled by separate order."
Read 8 tweets
Jun 26
The second and FINAL SCOTUS opinion today: Snyder v. US. Written by Justice Kavanaugh.
The vote is 6-3. Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
The question before the court was whether the federal bribery law makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The Court says NO it does not because state and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 26
The first SCOTUS opinion today: Murthy v. Missouri. Written by Justice Barrett.
The vote is 6-3, with Alito dissenting joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
This decision reverses (AGAIN) the Fifth Circuit, which held that the communications by governmental officials with social media platforms made the government officials responsible for the platforms' content-moderation decisions. "The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so," per Justice Barrett.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 26
David Harbach then argued on behalf of the Special Counsel.

Harbach: For purposes of a Franks hearing, the defense has to make a substantial, preliminary showing that false statements were made by the affiant with an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. The defense bears the burden of showing that absent those omissions and misrepresentations being made, there was no probable cause.
Harbach: The defense must show that there were deliberate falsehoods made or a reckless disregard for the truth accompanied by an offer of proof. It cannot be just conclusory and it has to be more than a desire to cross-examine the agent.

The defense has not shown any of that here.
Harbach: Even if the affiant agent's superior said that a consensual search was better, that was not part of the probable cause that the Magistrate Judge considered. It's not relevant here.
Read 9 tweets
Jun 26
[My apologies for the delay...traffic and life happened.]

Once again, Jack Smith appeared in court. David Harbach handled the oral arguments on behalf of the SCO. Emil Bove argued on behalf of Trump.

Cannon began the hearing by announcing that the parties had previously been in a sealed session in the morning.
Bove alleged defects in the search warrant used at MAL. He argued that the SW lacked particularity in the things to be seized and the places to be searched. He argued that Trump's medical records, tax documents, accounting records, and passports were seized and that is proof that the warrant didn't give sufficient particularity as to what could be seized by the FBI agents.
Cannon asked Bove what language should have been used in the search warrant and Bove replied that the warrant needed what the statutes actually prohibit because telling agents that they can make decisions "on the fly" isn't right. Bove also complained that terms like "government records" and "records" and "NDI" were overly broad and failed to provide sufficient guidance to the agents so they knew what they could seize.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(