Chevron Deference, Part 2

When I wrote about Chevron deference yesterday, I didn't realize the pertinent case was being argued before the Supreme Court today. So I guess I'm not as much of a SCOTUS nerd as I thought.

Well, it was. Progressive court-watchers saw a lot to be gloomy about in the questions asked by the Court's right-wing majority.

The Brennan Center has a good explanation of why it's all b.s.

Elie Mystal of The Nation live-tweeted the whole argument with his pithy analysis of each justice's questioning of the two sides. One tweet:

[John] Roberts is really trying to tell himself that none of this matters because Chevron isn't important anymore. Roberts is good at... inventing a world that doesn't exist and then living in it.

He ended with this:

I cannot emphasize enough that the conservatives are so comfortable overturning Chevron that they've broken out in laughter amongst themselves multiple times this morning. I'm surprised they haven't hired interns to feed them grapes and cool them with palm fronds as they sit comfortably with their newfound power.

Aside from Mystal, there were more posts in my feed about the arguments on BlueSky than on Twitter:

Chevron Doctrine to be replaced with Only Republican Presidents are Permitted to Govern Doctrine
Scott Lemieux @lemieuxlgm.bsky.social

If the Supreme Court goes big on obviating Chevron — as seems likely — the United States is about to be reminded that the alternative to a modern bureaucracy is not democratic horizontalism but the tyranny of thousands of little lords and petty fiefdoms.
Ned Resnikoff

Should we have a post-19th century state? Justices appear skeptical.
Ned Resnikoff

As an aside: Even if we had a judiciary that wasn’t full of GOP ideologues, the court’s new obsession with history would be a bad, dumb judicial approach because judges aren’t trained historians and are in over their heads having to historical work to decide cases.
russms.bsky.social

i suppose it’s no surprise that the “originalist” argument against deference to administrative agencies is total nonsense
b-boy bouiebaisse @jbouie.bsky.social

The effort to overturn Chevron is pro-chaos, not pro-business — keeping with the Republican brand
Dean Baker

Sure "administrative law" sounds boring but when you frame it as "can the US do climate policy or not" then it gets a lot more interesting
Quinta Jurecic

Buried at the bottom of the NYT's Chevron story is the key detail that the plaintiffs have suffered no actual injury. The court is once again going to overturn a major precedent based on a case where standing is dubious at best
Nick Fleisher

Now we wait until June to get the news that's already clear from today's arguments. As Peter from the "If Books Could Kill" podcast said on BlueSky,

the fact that people have become increasingly engaged with SCOTUS oral arguments the past few years feels like mass psychosis. in like 4 months they’re going to issue a decision with a written opinion. just wait until that comes out. you don’t need to subject yourself to Sam Alito’s voice.