Destruction of the Regulatory State Is Already Happening

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

The post-Chevron world is here. It's been barely a week since conservatives on the US Supreme Court radically upended the balance of power between the branches of government, giving the federal courts the exclusive power to interpret statutes rather than deferring to agency experts. And we're already seeing impacts on the ground.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 11:33 PM | 33 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

Right-wingers have been in the habit of running to their preferred courts to get regulations overturned, but the decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which officially destroyed agency deference, will make it easier-- even routine--to block every Biden administration rule they don't like.

Lawsuits to invalidate specific rules had been proceeding through the federal courts before Loper Bright, generally arguing that agencies exceeded their authority in promulgating a rule. These lawsuits exist in no small part because the Supreme Court made it clear they would destroy Chevron deference for years now, with Justice Neil Gorsuch having led the way well before his appointment to the Court.

Trump appointee Sean Jordan, who sits in the reliably hard-right Eastern District of Texas, was so eager to block a Biden administration's overtime rule that he dropped his decision the same day Loper Bright came out. It runs 36 pages and mentions Loper Bright multiple times, which means either Jordan was so confident of the Supreme Court decision that he either wrote it in advance or he hurried to stuff Loper Bright into his already-written opinion.

Jordan's opinion also rests heavily on dictionary definitions rather than expertise from the Department of Labor, which issued the rule. So now, the rule that would have made 4 million more Texas workers eligible for overtime, and thus more pay, is blocked thanks to a hurried read of a SCOTUS opinion and Webster's Dictionary.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-09 07:30 PM | Reply

It is important to note that the Chevron ruling has already been used to curtail transgender treatment and equality:

Bigotry from the bench

Unsurprisingly, much of the assault on administration rules relates to any regulation that would protect transgender people.

Four days after Loper Bright was handed down, another Trump appointee, Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas, enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs rule in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of Education spent two years finalizing the rule, which would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity under Title IX.

The unofficial text of the rule, which runs 1,577 pages with supporting material, is jam-packed with legal analysis. Hundreds of pages are spent explaining how the DOE considered and addressed public comments and the document details the mental health impact of discrimination against LGBTQ students.

Broomes's expertise is in natural resource law, a background that does not lend itself to a detailed understanding of Title IX, sex discrimination, or gender identity. But none of that matters.

Examples of more anti-transgender rulings at link.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-09 07:43 PM | Reply

na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 07:48 PM | Reply

Yes, I'm afraid the full destructive power of activist courts across the country has been unleashed, which the Supreme Court will then rubber stamp. The second revolution ushered in by the Federalist Society's remaking of the courts in it's own image is well underway.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-09 07:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Magats will be quite surprised and unhappy when it hits them. If they ever realize it.

How many of those losing overtime pay are Magats?

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 08:02 PM | Reply

"Yes, I'm afraid the full destructive power of activist courts across the country has been unleashed,
#4 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Well, you kinda lost your right to whine about that after the ---- you -------- pulled in NY. If you don't like activist courts, you probably shouldn't encourage them on leftist issues.

#6 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-07-09 08:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

www.hrdive.com

The State of Texas will not need to abide by the U.S. Department of Labor's new overtime rule " which changes the threshold at which workers qualify for overtime from an annual salary of $35,568 to $43,888 beginning Monday " following a preliminary injunction request granted Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan.

Texas filed its lawsuit June 3, arguing that in raising the salary bar, the department exceeded its authority by classifying executive, administrative and professional employees " so-called "EAP" employees " as nonexempt based on their salary, not their bona fide job duties (State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor, et. al.). The judge agreed that the rule is likely unlawful.

In his decision, Jordan invoked Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which came down earlier the very same day.

Congrats Magats, you ------ yourselves.

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 08:05 PM | Reply

Magats who see their paychecks cut will blame Biden,

Cause Magats are morons

A Magat secretary in Dallas just today: getyarn.io

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 08:08 PM | Reply

Hey, Magats, Joe Biden tried to give you more money. -------- Judges took that away from you!

That alone should give Biden Texas.

But Magats are morons.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 08:21 PM | Reply

"Judges took that away from you!
#9 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS"

The judge simply put back the decision to make this a law to the law making body and not unelected people, as it should be.

#10 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-07-09 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Chevron was an abomination. The power it gave to unelected bureaucrats tore at the very fabric of this country.

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-09 09:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Hey look!! The dumb people are chiming in!!

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 09:29 PM | Reply

The statute expressly gives the Secretary of Labor authority to define and delimit the terms of the exemption.

The rules which were overturned were the SoL's definition of the salary levels that are used to determine whether the employee is salaried.

WELL WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY

www.federalregister.gov

The issue is that the calculation that the SoL USED to IMPLEMENT the AUTHORITY that they EXPRESSLY have is complicated and based on the expertise of the Department of Labor.

------- Justices said the experts don't know how to implement the authority they have been expressly given by Congress.

So, an ignorant ass judge in Texas interprets it.

SOOOOOO

millions of Texans get paid less.

Hey, it doesn't impact me, I suspect it impact a WHOLE lot of Texas Magats. Eat ---- Texas Magats! What you are experiencing are the consequences of your actions.

But Ignorant Jeff thinks Chevron was an abomination, because jeff is an idiot

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 09:41 PM | Reply

re used to determine whether the employee is EXEMPT not salaried.

ugh.

Basically redefines who qualifies for overtime, essentially this would apply to secretaries, draftsmen, sales people who don't make much money.

They WOULD HAVE received time and a half for working over 40 hours.

Congrats lower middle class magats, You ------ Yourselves.

LOL

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 09:43 PM | Reply

#11

You're a retarded ----. ---- off, you stupid ----.

#15 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-07-09 09:54 PM | Reply

I have said it before, and I will say it again....

When I was a kid in NYC, we often talked about the "ring around the horizon" that we saw. There were times when instead of playing outside during the summer, we went indoors because outside our eyes burned from the air.

I also remember when I moved into my current house (late 70's), when a neighbor drove his car up their driveway, could smell that car.

Since the late 80's or so, neither of those two occurrences have recurred.

And I thank the EPA for that.

That's A Good Thing, no??

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-09 10:56 PM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

If you're talking about the Trump hush money trial, it was brought to trial at the recommendation of a Grand Jury. Just like it's supposed to work. Please explain how that's the work of an activist court?

#17 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-07-10 06:06 PM | Reply

The power it gave to unelected bureaucrats tore at the very fabric of this country.

#11 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Yes, we know. You believe corporations should have unlimited power to do as they wish, even at the expense of public health and the environment.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-07-10 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" Yes, we know. You believe corporations should have unlimited power to do as they wish, even at the expense of public health and the environment.

#18 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2024-07-10 06:08 PM | FLAG: "

No. These agencies are to be limited to the rules and guidelines Congress gave when crafting legislation

You seem to believe their powers should be limitless, when a Democrat is in the WH.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-10 06:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"No. These agencies are to be limited to the rules and guidelines Congress gave when crafting legislation'

And they are limited and they act like they are limited, they interpret the laws, like they are supposed to.

Chevron, stated that if there was ambiguity in the law, deference should be given to the experts.

Since a lawyer can find ambiguity in 1+1=2 the experts no longer interpret the law. Now people who don't know the difference between laughing gas and climate gas make the decisions.

Now judges pull quotes off of anonymous blogs to render medical decisions instead of the agencies that have studied the medication for 25+years

Now, who does THAT benefit, the people? or corporations?

But trust me, like Texas lower middle class magats who lost overtime pay, even YOU will eventually learn

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-10 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Chevron, stated that if there was ambiguity in the law, deference should be given to the experts.

Not "experts" the Bureaucrats experts. There are always experts on both sides of any scientific question.

#21 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-10 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Since a lawyer can find ambiguity in 1+1=2 the experts no longer interpret the law.

Same with experts ... that's why they are experts, you'll never here an expert give a definitive answer.

Do you give the experts on when life begins this same leeway?

NO you don't.

#22 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-10 07:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When life begins in a philosophical question.

An intelligent person would understand that. You clearly don't

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-10 07:11 PM | Reply

" When life begins in a philosophical question."

When life begins is a straightforward biological fact.

When personhood begins or is established at all is a philosophical question.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-10 08:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"When life begins is a straightforward biological fact."

Wrong

www.fertstertreports.org(22)00084-8/fulltext

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has been very good about putting out talking points on the Dobbs decision (4); however, I would argue that we need to focus specifically on this observation: life does not begin at fertilization (5). The egg is alive; the sperm is alive; and after fertilization, the zygote is alive. Life is continuous. Dichotomous thinking (0% human life for the egg, 100% human life for the zygote) is not scientific. It is religious thinking. Fertilization is not instantaneous, embryonic development is not precise, and individual blastomeres can make separate individuals.

Life begins is a philosophical question.

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-10 08:08 PM | Reply

#25. You're confusing or conflating life with personhood. Example: we can accurately measure the moment when a seed becomes a fern. A fern is alive. A fern is not a person.

In humans, an egg is not life, nor is sperm. When they merge, life has begun. The philosophical question is when does that life become a person.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-10 08:33 PM | Reply

No you said when life begins is a straightforward biological fact, when it is not.

Don't trust me? Let's ask he American Society for Reproductive Medicine

The egg is alive; the sperm is alive; and after fertilization, the zygote is alive. Life is continuous. Dichotomous thinking (0% human life for the egg, 100% human life for the zygote) is not scientific. It is religious thinking. Fertilization is not instantaneous, embryonic development is not precise, and individual blastomeres can make separate individuals.

It takes about 24 hours for a sperm cell to fertilize an egg. When the sperm penetrates the egg, the surface of the egg changes so that no other sperm can enter.

You being an idiot and a moron, I am not surprised you don't know basic reproductive biology.

Maybe you should stay out of a woman's womb

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-10 09:12 PM | Reply

"In humans, an egg is not life, nor is sperm. When they merge, life has begun. The philosophical question is when does that life become a person."

According to YOU, when an egg and a sperm merge life has begun, but it is not a human life as that is decided elsewhere.

If life began what is the life if not a human life?

You really aren't very bright.

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-10 09:13 PM | Reply

Life is biology. It's simple to verify.

You keep confusing it with personhood.

Stanley Kubrick raised the issue of personhood with HAL9000 on 2001 a Space Odyssey. HAL was not a living organism. The question was whether or not he was a person.

2 different concepts. One is biological the other is philosophical.

#29 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-10 09:42 PM | Reply

Thank God for that. No more deep state nonsense where bureaucrats make rules and answer to nobody when inflicting retarded rules on American citizens they have no right to enforce but did so carte blanche previously. Oh no! They can't just make arbitrary rules anymore and answer to nobody when they screw up someones life for violating their arbitrary rules, the horror!

#30 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-07-11 08:36 AM | Reply

#30 | Posted by THEBULL

You like your water with a side of Dioxin and a dash of PFAS I take it.

#31 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-07-11 09:04 AM | Reply

Right wing SCOTUS "justices"
are actually anarchists in black robes.
They want to tear down the Republic,
and finish the establishment of a true
Authoritarian Oligarchy. Period.
ALL of their actions and rulings have
pointed to this.

#32 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-11 01:43 PM | Reply

Lying conniving Dems gave us the biggest coverup in history that gave us the funk of a national nightmare and useless costly wars and mass destructive immigration. Every Dem political hack that promotes the Joe Biden travesty now wants to give us another idiot even worse. The Dems that pulled this off need to be on trial

#33 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-12 07:17 PM | Reply