Hacker News Reader

Comment by gibolt | Hacker News Reader

The argument was specifically a lack of evidence for a sweeping ban vs a targeted one. While the law can not be used as precedent, the evidence from nearly a century of business in the state with the highest GDP is a good starting point.

View on HN

What specific evidence possibly exists in California that is relevant to the granularity of rule-making that the FTC can legally perform under federal law? The scope of a regulatory agency's authority isn't linked to the quality of their rulemaking.

What the judge said according to the article:

The rule “is arbitrary and capricious because it is unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation”

California’s experience can be used to show that the rule is not capricious or unreasonably broad. The act establishing the FTC gave it broad powers and it does have the authority to do what it did. However, it is clear that the Supreme Court is going in a direction to greatly reduce regulatory authority. This ruling will likely stand but it shouldn’t.

I would much prefer to see Congress regulate this under interstate commerce

Just because Congress is gridlocked on dumb stuff doesnt mean I want agencies doing it. I’m glad those agencies got handicapped ensuring this wont survive on appeal. There are consensus bridging Americans that can be elected to Congress, I don’t think its so absurd to prefer the people take that route instead of trying to shove through conveniences or ideological things by any means.

Congress already gave the FTC the power to ban things that are unfair methods of competition and to ban acts that are unfair that affect commerce.

And if the FTC Act and similar legislation provides them the necessary powers, then the courts will rule that way. If they do not, then the legislative branch can always amend the FTC Act, assuming it isn’t found unconstitutional.

The issue is the dismantling of Chevron deference. For 40 years regulatory authority has been granted and written by Congress with the understanding that Chevron defference was the law of the land. Now the Supreme Court is demanding a level of specificity that isn’t practical and it means rewriting may decades worth of legislation. Given that SCOTUS has also decided to upend statute of limitations as it pertains to challenging established regulations we are going to enter a period of regulatory upheaval.

yay

you know we’re going to have this Supreme Court’s law of the land for the next 50 years, instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you have you considered shaping the country in ways that are practical?

Genuinely curious because thats what I don’t get about the SCOTUS dismay crowd. Isn't there some agency out there you hate? Some regulation thats set you back? Go after that one. Focus on what you can control instead of what you cant.

It has always been the case that an agency rule or regulation could be challenged in the courts. There are lots of examples prior to the recent Chevron ruling of courts striking down agency rules.

What’s going to happen is that companies are going to pollute a lot more with impunity. It will be a wild west sort of situation. Our quest to become Ferenginar is well on its way.

There’s more to the concept of regulation than just the EPA or anything related to the environment

A huge component of why I can’t take this “agency delegated” view seriously is because the people preferring it seemingly have no perception of just how much other agencies do, often in a protectionist way to an incumbent thats totally captured that agency. How difficult it was to get standing to even take an agency to court to alter it.

This adds color to my view: instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you, considered shaping the country in ways that are practical for you

Chevron’s dismemberment is hardly an issue, considering that it’s no different than monarchism in practice. People in power, with no term limits, deep pockets, and tons of leverage delegating power to those who are not elected and are, in fact, unchecked by any form of governmental authority. The balance shifted horribly and the USA was overall worse for it. Now we’re in an era where we can hopefully reverse enough of the damage and, ideally, institute term limits in a way to end the existence of career politicians.

In California the law was passed by the legislature, and the legislature is allowed to pass broad and capricious laws. That is the privilege of the political branches. California's experience is not analogous to the federal regulatory process.

Nonsense. If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional (whether it be the state or federal constitution) because it is too vague, it too can be struck down by the courts.

See e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/405/156

Arbitrary and capricious is not the same thing as vague. E.g. a law that says you can't drive a yellow car on the second Friday of each month is arbitrary and capricious but it is not vague (except maybe in the definition of "yellow")

The "arbitrary and capricious" language is used specifically in the Administrative Procedural Act, and so you don't see it much when talking about state law, but state laws have also been struck down for being arbitrary and thus in violation of the Due Process clause. See e.g. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-uncon... (search for "arbitrary").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com