Badges?
There is no more room for subterfuge in regulation.
How inefficient would a government efficiency commission be? Imagine the obstacles.
‘Elon Musk recently revealed that he has discussed the concept of a government efficiency commission with former President Donald Trump. Musk expressed his willingness to be part of such a commission, highlighting the significant challenges it would face. He pointed out that any attempt to reform and streamline government operations would provoke strong resistance, likening it to attacking “the matrix.” This metaphor underscores the entrenched interests and bureaucratic inertia that would likely oppose such changes.’
Ambiguity isn’t delegation. You know what is delegation? Actual delegation.
‘The Court’s opinion in Loper Bright sets no limitations on Congress’s ability to explicitly delegate policy choices to the Executive Branch (the extent to which such delegations may be limited by the nondelegation doctrine is a question for another case). Instead, the opinion has ended what was, in the majority’s view, a harmful legal fiction that prevented courts from doing their jobs: “By forcing courts to…pretend that ambiguities are necessarily delegations, Chevron does not prevent judges from making policy. It prevents them from judging.”’
The Court’s Environmental Evolution
Maybe this is the real problem the experts have with Loper: it forces them to sing for their supper.
‘First, those agencies will need to work for judicial deference. They can no longer merely assume it whenever they are interpreting ambiguous statutory language. A reasonable agency interpretation will no longer be sufficient to prevail. Agencies will need to persuade the court either that Congress affirmatively intended to delegate to the agency the discretionary authority to interpret the statute or, regardless of the evidence of such congressional intent, that their interpretation is the best. To accomplish the latter, agencies will need to rely heavily on the factors set forth by the Court 80 years ago in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. to determine what makes an agency’s statutory interpretation persuasive.
‘Second, the agencies will need to convince courts that a regulation does not trigger the major questions doctrine, requiring clear congressional authorization to validate the regulation. Finally, to the extent feasible, agencies will need to base their regulations on factual and technical assessments rather than legal interpretation.’
Michael Tavoliero: Time to overturn the court decision that established excessive federal regulation
Could NLRB be next to be reversed?
‘NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. led to the collapse of state sovereignty.
‘By expanding the federal government’s regulatory power over activities that have any impact on interstate commerce, the ruling erased the role of states in regulating local economic activities and labor relations. Take a moment and analyze the precursors to this case. The 16th and 17th Amendments, the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Act, the Jones Act and a myriad of federal laws and regulations opened the gate to this through the Wilson administration in 1913 as part of the Progressive Movement.
‘This case chilled and nullified the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. By the overbroad and vague interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Court effectively allowed federal encroachment into areas traditionally managed by states. Since we are discussing a timespan of almost 90 years, few of us have any memory nor experience of what that used to be like, which contributes to false historic revisioning.’
AI regulation in Europe has ‘blind spots.’
AI Regulation Still in the Mix as California Legislature Returns to Session
The polling is “through the roof” in favor of AI regulations, apparently. I thought there were experts who were above the fray?
‘A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 67% of Americans familiar with chatbots like ChatGPT are more worried that government regulations will not go far enough than that they will go too far.
‘Bauer-Kahan added that California lawmakers are open to industry input on their bills and that Silicon Valley knows something is likely to hit Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk before this legislative session is over. It’s just a question of what, exactly.’
When the feds don’t regulate … will the states?
Will Loper lead to more regulation overall? Or were the states always going to go their own way?
‘“If 50 states all decide to go their own way, you have a patchwork of policy making that’s very difficult to comply with,” he said. Kramer said even one state changing a rule can change the way businesses everywhere else operate, giving the example of the pork industry.’
The End of Environmental Protection Regulation as We Know It
Amazing to see how the experts ignore the possibility of agency adaptation to new conditions.
‘These recent Supreme Court decisions represent a seismic shift in the regulatory landscape and pose a particular threat to the federal government’s environmental protection regime. By limiting the power of federal agencies and extending the statute of limitations for challenging agency actions, these rulings introduce significant uncertainty and could provide an avenue for winding back environmental regulations that are already on the books. The full impact of these decisions will unfold over time, but their immediate effect is a substantial weakening of federal regulatory power and a suite of new tools for those seeking to challenge federal regulation.’
Expect Government Agencies to Come Knocking at the Door, Asking for Their Deference Back
Maybe this is the point. Congress deliberately writes vague laws to deflect the political consequences of writing specific laws.
‘And that unconstitutional delegation of power is the native problem. Lawmakers love to write vague laws, either through laziness or as a means of political deflection. They can then blame the bureaucracy for writing egregious interpretations, and now, after Chevron’s overthrow, they will be able blame the judiciary for upholding egregious interpretations. At the end of the day, tossing Chevron is akin to the court pulling the bureaucracy over and giving it a ticket for repeated drunk driving. It helps, but in the end the bureaucrats, betting that feckless courts won’t often reverse them, will be able to keep their legislative license largely intact.
‘There will be wins and there will be losses, but playing volleyball with rule interpretations—which in fact do belong in the court’s jurisdiction—misses the real point: If Congress did its job in writing specific laws, if Congress stopped handing out broad grants of statutory power to bureaucrats to write the real laws, the need for substantive rule interpretations would dwindle.’