The loss of chevron does not end regulation. It creates a morass of inconsistent and inexpert judicial inturpretations. It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
Probably one of the best in decades... Seriously how did we get to the point that hacker news of all places is fondly dreaming of a near presidential dictatorship where rule making doesn't even need the legislative branch.
Its not like the agencies could just do what they want prior - they generally had to follow the policies with freedom to interpret vague laws, and its up to congress to pass more clarifying laws.
The Chevron doctrine overruling wasn't taking power away from the executive branch, it was a backup plan if Democrats won, the Supreme Court can have power against the incoming administration. It should be pretty evident that the Republican Justices are solely in MAGA territory, considering Trump vs US ruling.
That's saying a lot considering that the presidential immunity decision is going to create the same kind of uncertainty surrounding presidential conduct which is likely not going to be resolved for decades.
You could always appeal the rulings from federal agencies in court and that's how we lost chevron [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
But yeah, the inconsistent rulings from the bench will be a total dumpster fire.
With Chevron in place, that imperfection was somewhat managed by deferring to the experts in the executive branch who were tasked with implementing the rules provided by Congress.
Without Chevron, a non-expert judge has to decide whose experts they believe.
Additionally, the removal of Chevron opens to doors to a massive number of cases that likely wouldn't be filed under Chevron. So, we're also adding caseload to an already overburdened justice system.
The bar to overturning those executive rules is now potentially much lower.
Take the ATF's bump stock ban (overturned prior to Chevron being killed, IIRC)... - Congress has effectively banned machine guns (for normal people to own) - ATF decides bump stocks make machine guns - Bump stock owner sues ATF, claiming they overreached - Courts initially upheld ATF rule (deferring to ATF experts) - Appeals courts overturned lower court ruling, claiming bump stocks don't meet the definition spelled out by Congress.
As much as I hate it, the appeals court is technically correct. The law passed by Congress was narrowly tailored and bump stocks don't meet that rule.
So, this was a case where Chevron was actually "worse" than "no-Chevron".
But, it's easy enough to imagine the reverse. Congress says "hey EPA, make the air clean!" with little or no guidance on the mechanism they want followed. EPA does its best, but now gets sued by any big industry that wants to pollute. With Chevron in place, implementing that vague law is still possible. Without it, EPA does it's best and often ends up losing to the other side's experts (and very likely the various districts decide differently, leading to inconsistent application of the law across the country, until/unless SCOTUS takes a case).
The simple answer is to require Congress to write detailed laws. But, that's not really possible (given the scope of the government). And exacerbated by the dysfunctional state of affairs we've seen in Congress these last few decades.
Either way, neither option sounds particularly favorable to me.
If this can all be second-guessed in court, then it becomes more of a crap shoot based on a series of judges’ rapport with the selected experts du jour, who are selected primarily based on the suitability of their opinion, rather than their expertise.
If you believe the government is usually wrong or often acting in bad faith, you might applaud the overturning of Chevron.
If you think the executive should be allowed to implement the often vague directives from Congress without fear of being overwhelmed in court, then you might think the overturning of Chevron will kill the government’s ability to function.
Personally, I’m not keen on the end of Chevron. But it probably isn’t going to lead to complete dysfunction either.
If the regulator is wrong or corrupt 1% of the time, it's good that the victims have legal recourse. The existence of that recourse will also make the regulators more likely to do honest work.
Guys… if the government tells you to do something and you disagree, you could always take them to court.
I applaud your patience.
This is why I like the Chevron decision a lot!
This ruling is a power grab by the court that says congress must write explicit rules and can't delegate authority to agencies to determine how to execute a mandate. The ethics rules and enforcement structure for those rules are much more strict for employees of government regulatory agencies than for the supreme court justices. If you are concerned about power corrupting, this seems like a very bad decision.
It’s a balancing act and I fear overturning Chevron shifts the balance to far in the other direction.
But the career bureaucrats? I’m not convinced.