The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

  • Amanda@aggregatet.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      124
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        4 months ago

        Corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it these days. They ruled recently that they are legally allowed to accept bribes, so long as the bribe comes after the decision is made.

        The laws of the United States of America are literally for sale by conservative judges. This breach of justice is actively dismantling a cornerstone of our countries successful history.

        Oh, the irony, that the “conservative” party is the one radically destroying the highest court in America. Their supporters can wave all the flags they want this week, but what they represent is actively destroying this country.

        It’s FOR the people BY the people, not for the highest bidder. at least, that’s how it used to be before Trump’s presidency.

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          For some justices, I agree. However, as a general principle, I think of the vast majority of “bad people” as incompetent rather than malicious unless there’s proof of guilt. I don’t know enough about all 9 justices to comfortably say they’re evil or corrupt.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s not about “bad people” or incompetence. It’s about fundamentally violent and corrupt systems of controlling humanity and destroying the planet for personal gain…

            This rube goldberg system of injustice was literally invented by slavers.

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ironic considering everything they’re “overturning” is former Supreme Court rulings that granted all these rights.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      4 months ago

      They interpret the law. And when existing law has bad policy outcomes people get made that 9 unelected lawyers in robes aren’t legislating for us. When the out comes are good people don’t hear about them or forget them.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.

    It’s a big club. You aren’t in it. I’m not in it. everyone you or I know isn’t in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren’t in the club.

    How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?

    You take it from them.

    • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      The truth is the winners have already won

      this. it’s all a big game and there are only winners and losers. good and evil are just ideas. if you believe in something, you go for the throat to make it reality. otherwise, you’re just a loser on the internet bitching about it. more of you need to wake up to this fact.

  • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The first time I saw a headline about this, just saying that the Supreme Court overturned “the Chevron doctrine” my initial thought was that I have no idea wtf they did but if the votes went 6-3 I know it can’t be anything good.

    Much to my consternation I appear to have been right.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’ve known this was coming for years. Once Goursich was added it was known to those watching the courts exactly what would happen.

      Before one of the hosts did the typical “become an unwanted sexual advance asshole” like everyone seems to become after they gain some fame, Opening Arguments podcast was a great way to learn about how depressing our future will be.

      It’s absolutely fucking disgusting that no matter what the outcome SHOULD be, you can almost always call how this court will go simply by asking “what benefits the ultra wealthy and what have conservatives wanted forever?”

      • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yup, that Open Args deep dive into chevron deference was an eye opener and called this one years ago. Sucks AT turned out to be That Guy.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Sadly I did not, but I also just stopped seeking that kind of information after Biden won. I needed a break from the madness. Lol

          I think I still need to back away to be honest… Being surrounded by MAGA and having two spiders fighting over a cockroach where my memory should be, any time I try to utilize what I’ve learned I just get shit all over by the firehouse of fox news b.s and the inability to remember things to refute it. I’m doing everyone a giant disservice by being another example of “a stupid liberal who has no idea what’s going on.”

          • ST5000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            Don’t be so hard on yourself! Thanks for the answer.

            Listening to OA sometimes made me feel bad. Being a “reality junkie” is a slippery slope to what is now called being “blackpilled”. Hope you can feel better soon.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Never listened to OA, but Strict Scrutiny is one I listen to for Supreme Court news and analysis.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Exactly! Time to make the SC bigger, so you have to bribe more than 3 or 4 or 6 to get your anti-people policy pushed through…

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is there a word to be People’s Will pilled? Cause that’s where I’m heading.

    • Revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      4 months ago

      Personally, I take comfort that the executive will be weakened as it looks more and more likely that we’re about to have a wannabe dictator coming to office.

    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s called Congress. Too bad they are made up of spineless, greedy pieces of shit to do anything about any of this.

      • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        the american people are just as spineless. anybody could open up a few seats. all it takes is a little patience and planning. those of you waiting on a corrupt system to fix itself are the biggest dipshits on the planet.

          • rozodru@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            mass protests, riots, a god damn revolution. But Americans are pansies and won’t do that. The common excuse of “but I have bills to pay, I have a job to go to, I can’t go riot/protest/revolt”

            Cause I’m sure all the people who have taken part in all the successful revolutions in all of history their first concern was “but I gotta pay my rent”. It’s a death by a thousand cuts. the powers that be KNOW americans are pissed off and they also KNOW americans won’t do anything about it, by design. all it takes is a revolution, but Americans won’t do that, they’re too afraid.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.

      Will be?

      I haven’t had any interest in visiting the place since Bush was president.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      And tou don’t even have Putin. If you need one, you can get one for free if you choose pickup. Also you might consider Boris “parlament is not place for discussion” Grizlov.

  • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    The illusion of democracy has entirely worn off. When are we taking to the streets with guns?

    • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      don’t take to the streets. take to the dark web. be smart. don’t be a mob. know which targets bring the most results. clandestine and precise. once upon a time, we had very smart people at the helm of the internet. i fear those people don’t exist any more.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        That takes an amount of cunning and resources that few people have. I think most people with the ability to do that benefit from the current status quo.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      When are we taking to the streets with guns?

      After we disarm the extremely weaponized cops, military, etc… And we don’t even need guns.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      4 months ago

      Democracy isn’t when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s when appointed officials side with the people, and the people are educated and thoughtful.

        Or so I’m told. I’ve never actually seen one. It’s like a unicorn.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They say so many things about magical place called European Union, where all unicorns live.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          As the saying goes, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Think you meant non elected.

      But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.

      Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s a great narrative that happens to justify a power grab by the judicial branch; probably the least democratic of the three branches.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.

          That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.

            This doesn’t seem to be working as intended. We have “originalists” who turn that concept on it’s head and are explicitly a political project.

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    But both sides are the same.

    God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn’t be getting this free reign. Fuck.

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I wish Gore had won, every other headline wouldn’t be about the impending climate doom and what we’re not doing to stop it

      Oh wait, he DID win and the fucking court stole it

      • marx2k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        Don’t forget that 3 of the current justices (Barrett, roberts, kavanaugh) were on bush’s legal team in 2000 Bush vs Gore

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        FL would’ve been a landslide and the courts wouldn’t have even been asked if the greens voted for Gore.

    • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I wish the democrats didn’t force her, the candidate that was predicted to be weakest against Trump and the only one likely to lose, through the primary with every trick they could. The democrats tried to skew and steer their own voters and we all lost because of it.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        The only one likely to lose? I think you have your facts confused on that one.