1/Loper Bright v. Raimondo, handed down on Friday by SCOTUS, will have a direct impact on all of our lives. It will upend agency regulations that are used to implement federal law. That sounds dry and far away from our daily lives. But it’s not.
2/The "administrative state" has operated since the Chevron decision in 1984 on the basic premise that Congress passes laws and agencies issue regulations that implement them. What happened when a regulated entity didn’t like an agency’s decision? They could sue.
3/The longstanding Chevron deference doctrine required courts to defer to agency action when the law was ambiguous and the agency’s view was reasonable. That came to an end on Friday, when Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority in no uncertain terms, “Chevron is overruled.”
4/Now, it’s up to the courts. The abortion drug mifepristone? Despite studies confirming the drug is safer than Viagra, that decision is up to Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas. If he decides the FDA was wrong to approve it, he can deny women access to medication abortion.
5/It’s no secret that part of the conservative agenda that led groups like the Federalist Society to back Trump was the hope of putting judges on the Court who would reverse Chevron, just like they did with Roe. Ending the power of agencies is also a key part of Project 2025.
6/Cases like Loper Bright dramatically reshape the balance of power between the branches of government, knocking the checks & balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers off kilter. This case exemplifies the reasons we say the Court is on the ballot-the president appoint judges.
7/For more about the case, which used a small herring fishing company to win a victory for big business & how it impacts our daily lives, read here: open.substack.com/pub/joycevance…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The more I read the immunity opinion, the clearer it becomes that the conservative majority is more concerned with concentrating power in the hands of the president than in how a president might abuse that power. Presidents as kings.
2/There is absolute immunity for a president acting within his constitutional authority and up to the full extent of the outer perimeter of whatever the Court says that authority is. Then, it gets even more troubling.
3/Presidents get “presumptive immunity" for their implied authority, what the Court characterizes as the "Twilight Zone" of presidential authority. They don't have to decide if it applies "at this stage" which suggests they expect further appeals once the district court does, but
1/There are a few bright lines for today's immunity decision. Trump's lawyer conceded at oral argument that they were only asking for immunity for *official acts* not private ones, what I've often viewed as President Trump vs. Candidate Trump. Assuming the Court agrees, they may
2/provide a test for lower courts to use in distinguishing between official and private acts. That's likely a fact-based test, which will require judges to let parties argue the evidence, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both. It's also possible that the Court will decide that...
3/some official conduct merits immunity-a president who orders a strike on foreign enemies based on the best advice of advisors in a time-constrained situation & one result is killing an American citizen, which is a fed'l crime. The Court might decide there is a narrow band of...
2/My personal view is that this is a terrible decision that makes homelessness a crime. But it seemed clear during oral argument that this was where the majority was headed & today's decision unfortunately confirms that.
3/SCOTUS' reverses the longstanding Chevron deference doctrine, which requires courts to defer to decisions made using the expertise of federal agencies. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
1/ 1st case: Ohio v. EPA. States opposed an EPA Good Neighbor provisions that restricted air pollution. For a case that came to the Court as a request for a quick ruling on a stay, it took a long time for them to rule (in favor of polluters, saying they're likely to prevail).
2/ Second case is Purdue Pharma, a legacy of the country's struggle with opioid addiction. SCOTUS says the Sackler family can't use a bankruptcy settlement to protect billions of dollars meant for victims. Interesting split here.
3/ Jarkesy. The technical holding is that a defendant in a civil SEC proceeding seeking penalties for fraud is entitled to a jury trial. Interesting background on the case here: politico.com/news/2024/05/2…
1/The Louisiana Legislature passed a law designed to get the Court to expand the role of religion in the courtroom. The law requires a display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, including at the college level.
2/The display must be 11” x 14” poster, with the Commandments in a large and easily readable font. The display includes a statement claiming the Commandments have been a prominent part of American education for almost 3 centuries.
3/That's likely an effort to gear up for SCOTUS' new "history & tradition" emphasis to determining constitutionality. Precedent on this issue is clear-the law isn't constitutional. Advocates want to change that & break down separation between church & state.
1/After Republicans rejected the immigration bill proposed by Democrats earlier this year, Republicans said Joe Biden needed to do more with his executive power by means of executive orders. Yesterday, he did.
2/Biden announced executive action that will allow qualifying undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens to apply for lawful permanent residency without first leaving the country. That’s important because it avoids family separation.
3/The families who have faced separation, whether at the hands of Trump’s policy or because a member left the country to pursue legal residency aren’t just numbers on a page. They are real people