Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
The Supreme Court is in its messy era. On its way to overturning Roe v. Wade, it let the decision leak out. It held a whole investigation to figure out who'd done it, but ultimately couldn't crack the case. Fast forward to this term, and the court itself accidentally posted an abortion decision early. No word yet on an investigation into what happened there. The list goes on.
on and on, making corrections to decisions after they're posted, confusing nitrogen oxide with nitrous oxide. Clarence Thomas and his billionaire benefactor, Justice Alito and his free $100,000 jet ride. Remember that one time someone flushed a toilet during Zoom-preem court? When the subject matter of the call
The highest court in the land loves to remind us of its own fallibility, but even with all the fails, it just decided to take over a huge chunk of the federal government's workload. Why that math isn't mathing on Today Explained.
Ryan Reynolds here for, I guess, my 100th Mint commercial. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, honestly, when I started this, I thought I'd only have to do like four of these. I mean, it's unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month. How are there still people paying two or three times that much? I'm sorry, I shouldn't be victim blaming here. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash save whenever you're ready. For
It seems like each news cycle is filled with stories of people testing the boundaries of our laws. To help illuminate the complex legal issues shaping our country, Cafe has assembled a team of legal experts for a new podcast called The
Oh, yay. Oh, yay.
It's today explained from Vox, where Ian Millhiser writes about the Supreme Court. His latest opus is titled The Supreme Incompetence, just to give you an idea of his opinion of the institution these days. Suffice to say, he was not thrilled to see the court expand its power this term. So there was a decision called Loperbright, which was handed down. It overruled a very, very important case called Chevron. Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.
This case involves the validity of an important regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
Chevron was decided in the Reagan administration, and it said that generally speaking, when Congress delegates the power to make some sort of policy decision to a federal agency, the court should butt out of that decision and let the agency do its job.
So the first thing that you need to understand to understand Chevron is that there are just scads of federal laws, hundreds, possibly even thousands of federal laws that announce some sort of broad policy objective and then tell a federal agency, go and figure out how to implement this.
And these laws concern very important things like, you know, who gets overtime pay or how we're going to fight climate change. They also involve like very, very small questions like what the cable rates will be on a certain island in Hawaii or how much nitrogen can be emitted by a wastewater treatment plant in Massachusetts. So everything from the grandly important to the very, very small concerns
Congress has said, we want these federal agencies to be making these decisions about all these important policy questions.
And somehow this question ends up in front of the Supreme Court. That's right. The issue was you had a federal statute which said that EPA is supposed to impose certain permitting requirements on stationary sources of pollution. That was the language that the statute used. Stationary sources. Stationary. Stationary. Stationary. Stationary sources. What the hell does that mean?
Well, the Carter administration came up with one answer. The Reagan administration had a different answer. And the key to understanding Chevron is to understand both of these reinterpretations of this term statutory sources were equally permissible. Someone had to pick.
what the meaning was. And the Supreme Court said in Chevron, we want the agency to do it. Congress told the agency to do it. The agency knows what it's talking about. And the agency is led by political appointees who can be thrown out of office if the president loses election. So we want them making the decision and not the courts. Okay, that all sounds reasonable because it's
how our government has looked for the intervening decades, right? How important a precedent does Chevron become? I mean, Chevron is a foundational precedent. Chevron was arguably as foundational to the development of U.S. administrative law as Brown v. Board of Education was to the development of the law of racial equality in the United States. It is the back
or I guess was the backbone of U.S. administrative law. This notion that federal agencies, democratically accountable agencies staffed with experts should be making these policy decisions and not unelected judges. Was it at all controversial? Were there people on either side of the aisle complaining about this legal precedent?
I mean, there were certainly worse scholars who, you know, thought Chevron was a bad idea. But it was a unanimous decision. And some of the biggest cheerleaders for it were Republican. Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative icon, was a huge advocate for Chevron. Before we even had these inflated delegation notions, it was always the case that
that courts deferred to executive action. And in retrospect, it's not hard to figure out why. Because when Chevron was handed down, Ronald Reagan, you know, a conservative deregulatory president, was in office. Well, when government gets too big, freedom is lost.
The government is supposed to be the servant. And the court still had a number of Carter and Johnson appointees who were very liberal and were striking down a lot of the Reagan administration's deregulatory agenda.
So when a court decision saying federal agencies and not courts should be deciding these important policy questions came down, that was, at least in the immediate term, a big victory for Republicans because it meant that the Republican president would get to make all these decisions without interference from all these judges.
By Obama's second term, I would cover the Federalist Society's annual convention. That's the conservative legal organization that's basically the legal arm of the Republican Party. And by Obama's second term, their annual convention just became an endless series of reposals to rein in federal agencies, to overrule Chevron, to make sure that the Obama administration didn't have the power to upset policy.
Article III judges have a duty to provide independent judgment. And if a judge is deferring to something that someone in the executive branch has said about the law, that judge is not providing independent judgment. Okay, and this ends up
Reaching the Supreme Court, perhaps, in a case called Loper. Could you tell us about this particular case? What's it about? Is it about, you know, climate policy? There is a rule saying that sometimes fishing vessels...
need to have a federal observer on board to make sure that the fishing vessel is complying with various federal rules and law. Seems reasonable. Seems reasonable. No one questions that the observer is allowed to be there. The specific question in this case is whether the fishing vessel or the government has to pay for this individual to be on the boat.
That's it.
That is the specific policy question at issue in Loper Bright. I guarantee you that unless you own a fishing vessel, there's absolutely no reason at all that you should care about the answer to that question. How does that question even make it to the Supreme Court? Well, the reason it makes it to the Supreme Court is because under Chevron,
I believe was the federal agency, had determined that the fishing vessel has to pay for these observers. The fishing industry obviously didn't like that. But under Chevron, there wasn't much that they could do because, you know, if the federal agency makes that decision, Chevron said the court should defer to the federal agency. And so they went to the, they filed a lawsuit. Eventually they brought it to the Supreme Court and they said, courts,
You should stop deferring to these federal agencies. You should have the final word.
on whether or not, you know, not just whether or not these observers are on fishing boats, but on every other policy question that Congress has delegated to federal agency. My point is, it's really convenient for some members of Congress not to have to tackle the hard questions and to rely on their friends in the executive branch to get them everything they want. And what the Supreme Court said in Loper Bright. The other concern for any judge is abdication.
to the executive branch running roughshod over limits established in the Constitution or in this case by Congress. So that's why it's hard to find the right balance between restraint and letting the executive get away with too much on that. They said, yeah, no, I think we –
The justices of the Supreme Court should have this power because we are so wise. And why would anyone not trust our judgment over the judgment of an extra day agency that actually knows something about fishing vessels?
So the Supreme Court has once again set the clock back, this time to a world before this pivotal 1984 Chevron decision. We have lived in this world where these kinds of administrative questions were decided by the court before. Why is this a problem in 2024 or 2030 or 2040? You just have to understand the history of the Chevron doctrine.
When Ronald Reagan was president, the court said, oh, we're going to step back and make sure that Ronald Reagan can do what he wants. When Barack Obama was president, they suddenly, you know, the Federalist Society organized it, decided it had to get rid of this deference. And now with Joe Biden in office, the court is sweeping away his regulations left and right. Yeah.
Tonight, the Supreme Court dealing a major defeat to President Biden, striking down his plan to erase more than $400 billion in federal student loan debt. By a vote of six to three, the Supreme Court is blocking the Biden administration from carrying out the rules imposed by OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
that would require companies that employ more than 100 workers to make sure that all their employees either get vaccinated for COVID or wear masks and be tested once a week. And they're overruling seminal precedents. So given the court's very partisan treatment of this issue throughout its history, I'm just not optimistic that if we have a Republican president in a year that the Supreme Court's going to apply Loper-Bright in an even-handed way.
I also think that the court is just going to be overwhelmed because it's going to get a fire hose of cases that no one cares about. I mean, again, like remember the issue in Loper Bright was this tiny ass issues. There are thousands of issues that are just as small.
And the justices with 36 law clerks simply do not have the personnel that they need to to address all these questions in a responsible way. Life after Loper brights when we're back on Today Explained. Hey, Today Explained listeners, Sue Bird here. And I'm Megan Rapinoe. Women's sports are reaching new heights these days and there's so much to talk about and so much to explain. You mean like why do female athletes make less money on average than male athletes?
Great question. So, Sue and I are launching a podcast where we're going to deep dive into all things sports, and then some. We're calling it A Touch More. Because women's sports is everything. Pop culture, economics, politics, you name it. And there's no better folks than us to talk about what happens on the court or on the field.
and everywhere else too. And we're going to share a little bit about our lives together as well. Not just the cool stuff like MetGalas and All-Star Games, but our day-to-day lives as well. You say that like our day-to-day lives aren't glamorous. True. Whether it's breaking down the biggest games or discussing the latest headlines, we'll be bringing a touch more insight into the world of sports and beyond. Follow A Touch More wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Wednesday.
Support for today explained comes from Three Day Blinds. Home improvement projects are rarely as easy as they seem. What starts as a simple fix can get out of hand in a hurry.
That's why it's great that the people at 3 Day Blinds can do the heavy lifting for you. 3 Day Blinds offers a new approach to buying high quality blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery. They're the leading manufacturer of custom window treatments in the U.S., fun fact. And right now, they're running a buy one, get one 50% off deal. Right now, you can get the 3 Day Blinds buy one, get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery.
For a free, no charge, no obligation consultation, just head to 3dayblinds.com slash explained. That's buy one, get one, 50% off when you head to 3dayblinds.com slash explained. One last time, that's the number three, D-A-Y, blinds.com slash explained.
Support for Today Explained comes from Noom. Sometimes when we're trying to eat healthier, we slip up. We order takeout. We have an extra slice of cake. We eat an entire bag of chips. Takis are really good.
Sue me. According to Noom, those moments have less to do with discipline and more to do with psychology. Noom is a weight management program that focuses on the science behind food cravings to help you build sustainable eating habits. No big deal.
Phoebe Rios is a colleague of ours here at Vox, and she tried Noom herself. I definitely noticed a change in my behavior when taking Noom. Even in the first month, I learned a lot more about nutrition than I was expecting, like choosing whole fruit over dried fruit to help feel fuller longer. You can sign up for your trial today at Noom.com. What's the difference between the Supreme Court and a regular court? I don't know, Sean. What? Sour cream, lettuce, and tomatoes. No.
Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Today, Explained is back with Vox's Ian Millhiser. Ian, what kinds of questions will this Supreme Court now be answering? What kinds of legal issues will they be dealing with now instead of maybe the federal agencies that would have been dealing with them prior?
So the impact of the Loper-Bright decision will basically be that a ton, like potentially thousands of really small bore issues that like few people care about any one of them. But when you take them all together, they really matter are now going to be just hitting the justices over and over again. I mean –
Questions like, does the process of mixing and bagging sand constitute milling or manufacturing? Which electrical facilities are used only in local distribution? These are some really wonky questions. And these are issues that you would think would be beneath the notice of
of the nine most powerful officials in the most powerful nation that has ever existed. But instead, they're just going to be inundated with these questions that they know nothing about.
And I think that the result is going to be that thousands of different smaller ways U.S. governance is going to be much, much worse because instead of having people who know what they're talking about making these decisions, you're going to have these nine imperious justices making them.
Are these the kinds of decisions that are like vulnerable to lawsuits, though? They are now. That's the issue is that before Chevron, if an agency made a decision that you didn't like, I mean, it's not like you were without a recourse. You know, if you didn't like what Ronald Reagan did, you could campaign for Walter Mondale. You could donate to Walter Mondale's campaign. You know, if you didn't like what Barack Obama did, you could campaign for Mitt Romney. Like, you know, we
The idea was that these decisions should be resolved through the democratic process. Now, if you don't like what Joe Biden does, you file a lawsuit. Why would the Supreme Court do this, Ian? This is an institution that loves to take its summers off, famously. Why would they say we want to work way harder? We want to do the work of potentially, you know, dozens of federal agencies.
Yeah, it's an excellent question, and I wish I knew the answer to that because the court has not shown a capacity to stay on top of its current workload. And it has shown that despite the fact that his workload has been rapidly diminishing. So there's this great quote that I love to bring up whenever I can from when Chief Justice Roberts was a young lawyer in the Reagan White House.
And he wrote this great line in a memo. Man, I have never agreed more with John Roberts in my life.
But like one thing about this very good joke that stands out is Roberts refers to a court in the early 1980s that was hearing roughly 150 cases each term. That number has been in steady decline since the 1960s. This term, they only heard 59 cases. The court is hearing fewer cases now than it's heard at any period since like the Civil War era. They're just not that busy.
And despite the fact that they're not that busy, this is one of the slowest terms in memory in terms of just how fast they will get court cases to come out. The court always finishes up in June. The only other term I'm aware of when –
The justices went into July and at least in recent memory was the pandemic term. And that was because there was a pandemic going on that, you know, obviously made it harder for them to do their jobs. The subject matter of the fall ranges to this topic. So like these guys, they're hearing fewer and fewer cases. They're barely able to keep up on their workload as it is. And now that workload is going to going to balloon enormously.
How certain are we that this is how it goes? How certain are we that the federal government's functionality just fundamentally changed? Having lived through the last three weeks that we lived through, I am out of the business of making predictions. But the reason why Chevron happened in the first place...
Was because the justices, you know, again, it was a unanimous decision. And I think that the justices who decided were very wise. You know, they had been through the experience. It's not like federal regulations, you know, simply fell out of a coconut tree in the Reagan administration, you know.
They had been around for a really long time. Courts had been wrestling with these questions of who should decide this, what should we do when the law is ambiguous, and how do we figure out how to parse this statute where it can be read in multiple ways. And finally, the justices in Chevron said—
We don't actually know what we're doing here. Like, the reason why this is hard is because we, the judiciary, are not equipped to answer these questions. They should be handled by people who know what they're talking about. So, like, Chevron was something that, like, emerged from many decades of experience of justices' –
being forced to decide these really hard questions over and over again, not being able to figure out a good answer, you know, arguing amongst themselves, you know, does this vague statute mean X or Y when really it could be read to read either X or Y. And finally they realized, oh, the problem here isn't that some of us didn't read this statute correctly. The problem here is that the judiciary is ill-served to be in this business altogether.
So federal agencies can still make rules, but now it just got a lot easier to challenge them up to the Supreme Court, which you would argue, based on their staff size and legal backgrounds, is ill-equipped
to take on the various minutia of all these federal agencies. Is that right? That's right. I mean, and I think two things are going to happen. You know, one is that, you know, the justices are just going to be overwhelmed. You know, they're going to wind up having to resolve more cases than they can handle.
But the other thing that I'm afraid of happening is, I mean, how do most people react when you give them a difficult policy question that they haven't thought about before and that they have no expertise in? You know, typically they fall back on ideology. If you ask a Democrat, like, is a good idea to regulate the environment? You know, they're probably going to say yes. If you ask a Republican, is this environmental regulation a good idea? And they don't know enough to know whether it's a good idea or not. They're probably going to say no.
And it's not because there's anything wrong with Democrats or Republicans. It's just that when you're confronted with a difficult question that you don't really know the answer to, ideology is a nice thing that you can fall back on in order to come up with some answer. And so I fear that these justices, you know, they're not just going to be overwhelmed, but we're going to get a ton of ideological decisions because without the expertise and without the ability to discover the correct answer, they're going to have to fall back on something.
But that phenomena you're describing, just to push back a little bit here, isn't that also how federal agencies work under different presidents? You didn't see a lot of environmental regulation under the former president and you did under the current president. I think that's a fair critique. And the response to that is that if you don't like what the Biden administration is doing, vote for a different president.
If you don't like what the Trump administration is doing, vote for a different president. Chevron ultimately left that decision in the American people. And yes, it is true that Democratic administrations are going to want more environmental regulation. Republican administrations are going to want less environmental regulation. The voters know that.
Let them make that choice instead of doing what the Supreme Court did in Loper Bright, which is to say we, the six Republican justices, will make these decisions, you know, potentially forever.
Ian Millhiser, Vox.com. Victoria Chamberlain made the show today. Amina Alsadi, Laura Bullard, Andrea Christen's daughter, Patrick Boyd, and I helped. The rest of the team includes Halima Shah, Abishai Artsy, Hadi Mawagdi, Amanda Llewellyn, Miles Bryant, Peter Balanon-Rosen, Denise Guerra, and Rob Byers. Matthew Collette is the supervising editor, Miranda Kennedy is our executive producer, and Noelle King is the director.
is our chief justice. We use music by Breakmaster Cylinder, and we have a favor to ask. Vox is making a new show that will answer questions from Vox readers and listeners. The questions can be about anything heavy, silly, personal, systemic. We'll cover culture, finance, politics, technology, more. You can ask why dating feels harder these days. Were the Star Wars prequels actually good? How can I tell if my dentist is scamming me? You get the
point. If you want something in your world explained and Google and the robots can't get you the answer, submit questions to askvox at vox.com. Askvox at vox.com or give us a call at 1-800-618-8545, 1-800-618-8545. Today Explained is distributed by WNYC. The show is a part of vox.com. Support our journalism by joining our membership program today at vox.com slash members. Thank you.