The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

  • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The first time I saw a headline about this, just saying that the Supreme Court overturned “the Chevron doctrine” my initial thought was that I have no idea wtf they did but if the votes went 6-3 I know it can’t be anything good.

    Much to my consternation I appear to have been right.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’ve known this was coming for years. Once Goursich was added it was known to those watching the courts exactly what would happen.

      Before one of the hosts did the typical “become an unwanted sexual advance asshole” like everyone seems to become after they gain some fame, Opening Arguments podcast was a great way to learn about how depressing our future will be.

      It’s absolutely fucking disgusting that no matter what the outcome SHOULD be, you can almost always call how this court will go simply by asking “what benefits the ultra wealthy and what have conservatives wanted forever?”

      • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yup, that Open Args deep dive into chevron deference was an eye opener and called this one years ago. Sucks AT turned out to be That Guy.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Sadly I did not, but I also just stopped seeking that kind of information after Biden won. I needed a break from the madness. Lol

          I think I still need to back away to be honest… Being surrounded by MAGA and having two spiders fighting over a cockroach where my memory should be, any time I try to utilize what I’ve learned I just get shit all over by the firehouse of fox news b.s and the inability to remember things to refute it. I’m doing everyone a giant disservice by being another example of “a stupid liberal who has no idea what’s going on.”

          • ST5000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            Don’t be so hard on yourself! Thanks for the answer.

            Listening to OA sometimes made me feel bad. Being a “reality junkie” is a slippery slope to what is now called being “blackpilled”. Hope you can feel better soon.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Never listened to OA, but Strict Scrutiny is one I listen to for Supreme Court news and analysis.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Exactly! Time to make the SC bigger, so you have to bribe more than 3 or 4 or 6 to get your anti-people policy pushed through…