The Supreme Court on Friday killed off a judicial doctrine that has protected many federal regulations from legal challenges for decades — delivering a major victory for conservatives and business groups seeking to curb the power of the executive branch.

The 6-3 decision divided the court along ideological lines. Its fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.

Known as Chevron deference, the Reagan-era doctrine required judges to defer to agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal laws. Now, judges will be freer to impose their own readings of the law — giving them broad leeway to upend regulations on health care, the environment, financial regulations, technology and more.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    There will be no long-term climate plans anymore, that’s the point. Judges will get rid of them all because the justice system is pro-corporate.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review

        When has that ever stopped SCOTUS before?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not the president can legally commit murder. That doesn’t even need special legislation. There isn’t even a question. And yet SCOTUS is looking into the question. And you want me to trust them with ecological disasters?