Chevron won Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council. The case focused on what was meant by a 'source' of pollution as used in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The EPA was on the side of Chevron, and NRDC sued in the hopes that the court would interpret the law as they, rather than the EPA, interpreted it. The court deferred to the EPA.
So while you think you might want deference to the agency, sometimes it's nice to have a judge.
But then, in another opinion they knew they were delivering this session when they finalized that, they removed the statute of limitations on challenging federal regulations, so actually it does mean they’re all (well, any that inconveniences a corporation) going to be reviewed without Chevron deference. They basically lied, all back-to-back so it was obvious.
The removal of the statue of limitations means that any new company that's formed can challenge any regulations that they are subject to, no matter when the regulation was formed.
Combined with Chevron's reversal and the increased power of the judiciary, well, I think it's going to paradoxically destroy the court system. Imagine the delays when thousands of companies sue to challenge millions of regulations.
The Supreme Court (ultimately) now decides not whether a President is guilty of, say, murder committed while in office, but whether they may even be tried for it.
Though, yeah, it’s gonna gum up the works in a big way. I wonder if they’ll see a budget increase and large increase in the number of (lower) court judges (so, new appointments) if the elections go a certain way in November.
I'm a libertarian and an environmentalist. Pollution is harming other people just as clearly and directly as assault, rape or murder and so regulations against that harm still fit naturally and comfortably within even fairly extreme or hardline libertarian frameworks.
A law that says "You can't spray mace in someone's face" and a law that says "You can't spray <whatever other harmful chemical> in <the air that will eventually hit people's faces>" are ideologically the same.
Perhaps you meant it's a fascist, statist or autocratic dream? The people with power (economic, political, social) get to benefit while the people without power get harmed.
Also a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
And in many states they are appointed by republicans. Companies already venue shop to cases to get the judge they want. Why won't this continue to happen?
> a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
It's not for the companies because while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. The longer they can delay, the better for them.
> while its bogged down, its business-as-usual.
Uncertainty is bad for business.
Only some kinds, while other kinds are great for business. For example, the tabacco industry very deliberately created uncertainty about the links between smoking and lung cancer for years and years because it meant in the meantime they could continue business as usual.