SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Written by Roberts.
EPA exceeded its authority.
EPA exceeded its authority.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
THis one is a BIG one. The EPA is another of those governmental "self-licking ice cream cones that needs to go away.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
F'n A!
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Tw0HvmR4/ExhaustedInconsequentialGardensnake-max-1mb.gif)
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth?
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Oh the BURN....
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Quote
(b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by mathman
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth?
I’m sure they already are! Thank God, a few good rulings have been made by SCOTUS.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by denton
Oh the BURN....
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Quote
(b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Quote
The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also affected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different kind."
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Pretty consequential term. Will be talked about for decades.
Seems like Chevron is going to die by a thousand cuts if the court retains it's current makeup.
Regarding Biden v Texas, wasn't the "remain in Mexico" dealeo by executive order? If so, even as I agree with it, I believe that presidents be able to resend previous orders?
Seems like Chevron is going to die by a thousand cuts if the court retains it's current makeup.
Regarding Biden v Texas, wasn't the "remain in Mexico" dealeo by executive order? If so, even as I agree with it, I believe that presidents be able to resend previous orders?
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by denton
Oh the BURN....
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Quote
(b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely
used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined
to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to
“hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the
authority it claims under Section 111(d). B
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Yep.
Was hoping for at least something addressing this either way.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by mathman
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth?
You'd think the lefties would have treated Richard Nixon a little better since he signed OSHA and the EPA into law.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by denton
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
That is my hope here.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
From Alito's and Gorsuch's concurrence opinion:
"To resolve today’s case the Court invokes the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine’s terms, administrative agencies must be able to point to “ ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” when they claim the power to make decisions of vast “ ‘economic and political significance.’ ” Ante, at 17, 19. Like many parallel clear-statement rules in our law, this one operates to protect foundational constitutional guarantees. I join the Court’s opinion and write to offer some additional observations about the doctrine on which it rests...
The major questions doctrine works in much the same way to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers. Ante, at 19. In Article I, “the People” vested “[a]ll” federal “legislative powers . . . in Congress.” Preamble; Art. I, § 1. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, this means that “important subjects . . . must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself,” even if Congress may leave the Executive “to act under such general provisions to fill up the details.” Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 42–43 (1825). Doubtless, what qualifies as an important subject and what constitutes a detail may be debated. See, e.g., Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. , –_ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–6); id., at – (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 10–12). But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).
It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” The Federalist No. 11, p. 85 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). From time to time, some have questioned that assessment. But by vesting the lawmaking power in the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution sought to ensure “not only that all power [w]ould be derived from the people,” but also “that those [e]ntrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” Id., No. 37, at 227 (J. Madison). The Constitution, too, placed its trust not in the hands of “a few, but [in] a number of hands,” ibid., so that those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent and have an “immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” Id., No. 52, at 327 (J. Madison). Today, some might describe the Constitution as having designed the federal lawmaking process to capture the wisdom of the masses. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 502–503 (2014).
"To resolve today’s case the Court invokes the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine’s terms, administrative agencies must be able to point to “ ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” when they claim the power to make decisions of vast “ ‘economic and political significance.’ ” Ante, at 17, 19. Like many parallel clear-statement rules in our law, this one operates to protect foundational constitutional guarantees. I join the Court’s opinion and write to offer some additional observations about the doctrine on which it rests...
The major questions doctrine works in much the same way to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers. Ante, at 19. In Article I, “the People” vested “[a]ll” federal “legislative powers . . . in Congress.” Preamble; Art. I, § 1. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, this means that “important subjects . . . must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself,” even if Congress may leave the Executive “to act under such general provisions to fill up the details.” Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 42–43 (1825). Doubtless, what qualifies as an important subject and what constitutes a detail may be debated. See, e.g., Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. , –_ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–6); id., at – (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 10–12). But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).
It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” The Federalist No. 11, p. 85 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). From time to time, some have questioned that assessment. But by vesting the lawmaking power in the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution sought to ensure “not only that all power [w]ould be derived from the people,” but also “that those [e]ntrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” Id., No. 37, at 227 (J. Madison). The Constitution, too, placed its trust not in the hands of “a few, but [in] a number of hands,” ibid., so that those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent and have an “immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” Id., No. 52, at 327 (J. Madison). Today, some might describe the Constitution as having designed the federal lawmaking process to capture the wisdom of the masses. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 502–503 (2014).
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Ruling was 6-3, with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Originally Posted by denton
Ruling was 6-3, with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.
There. Seems. To be a pattern here.
If there’s anything that one can rely on it would the votes of these 3.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Breyer last day as a judge
His replacement is even worse
His replacement is even worse
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Denying Cert to the AB5 case out of California - that has major ramifications. Expect the cost of goods to go up as the cost of getting them off LA/LB is about to shoot up. Volume will move to other ports - Seattle, Vancouver, Miami, Houston, Savannah etc.
Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA - 06/30/22
Sad to see that AB5 was denied cert. It's a nasty bit of work.
In general, California has punitive employment laws. We had a contractor working for us who lived in California years ago, and he was clearly on a 1099 deal. He did no work in CA at all. When his contract was up, he filed for unemployment. What a mess. CA agreed with him, and wanted us to pay his claim. Administrative law judge ruled there was no nexus, and hence no liability for us, after $2000 in attorney fees. After that, we pretty much quit using CA talent on our jobs and put a clause in our contract that our contractors were strictly liable for all costs related to resolving improper unemployment claims. Net result, less work for Californians. I don't suppose that is what they intended to accomplish??
As you point out, the freight will move to other, more friendly ports.
In general, California has punitive employment laws. We had a contractor working for us who lived in California years ago, and he was clearly on a 1099 deal. He did no work in CA at all. When his contract was up, he filed for unemployment. What a mess. CA agreed with him, and wanted us to pay his claim. Administrative law judge ruled there was no nexus, and hence no liability for us, after $2000 in attorney fees. After that, we pretty much quit using CA talent on our jobs and put a clause in our contract that our contractors were strictly liable for all costs related to resolving improper unemployment claims. Net result, less work for Californians. I don't suppose that is what they intended to accomplish??
As you point out, the freight will move to other, more friendly ports.