‘Massive power grab’ by SCOTUS ‘throws out decades of established law’

250,661
0
Published 2024-06-29
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 40-year-old legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer. The unprecedented judicial power grab shifts the final say on ambiguous laws from the experts staffing these agencies to federal judges, helping to advance a major goal of Project 2025, the rightwing manifesto for dismantling democratic institutions. The ruling “disrespects both the Congress and the Executive branch – amassing power for the court itself,” says Jody Freeman, an administrative law professor and Director of the Environmental and Energy Law program at Harvard Law School. Justice Correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal calls it a “massive power grab” leaving “no power for the people to choose for themselves.”

» Subscribe to MSNBC: youtube.com/msnbc

Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: www.msnbc.com/information/download-msnbc-app-n1241…

Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc-daily-signup
Find MSNBC on Facebook: www.facebook.com/msnbc/
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: twitter.com/MSNBC
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: www.instagram.com/msnbc

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #January6

All Comments (21)
  • So unelected bureaucrats not being able to twist ambiguous laws to fit their needs is a bad thing huh?
  • @cmonayyy7238
    The hypocrisy with these talking heads is astounding.
  • @NESig
    Taking power away from unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats is a good thing.
  • The level of constitutional law weaknesses on the panel is disturbing. This is the reason bureaucrats should not legislate nor dilute the interpretation of the law. Experts are always involved in the legislative process, but they don't vote.🎉Bravo Supreme Court
  • Constant exposure to false information on TV can lead to the acceptance of those falsehoods as truths. This can distort one's perception of reality and create a state where the person is not aware of the actual truth.
  • @sharpe34
    After having a 3 inch deep, 8 inch wide drainage ditch called a "Navigable Water way" by the DNR, and loosing the use of a field over 50 years old, who in their right mind wants some bureaucrat calling a ditch a river?
  • @Isynchromissity
    Well, some of those “experts” often profit either directly or indirectly from the decisions they make. We need better laws and accountability measures that prevent anyone or their immediate families from profiting from any decisions they make before and especially after they serve. This should also apply to every member of congress and Supreme Court justices.
  • @foxxygranpa87
    Okay I'll bite. Why is overturning a rule that let 3 letter agencies pick and choose laws to change whenever they want a bad thing?
  • @scott2228
    This takes power away from the ATF. And I’m 1000% good with that. Now they can’t simply change a definition to make the law fit the outcome they want.
  • @Nate-nf2no
    Most of the logical people in America are tired of the “specialist in government Bureaucracy which are nothing more than lobbyists.”
  • @debchiu
    A business owner having to pay $700 per day for a person to interpret a law in a way they feel is correct is BS. The power grab that you speak of was this ridiculous law that was in place.
  • Did you hear the arguments? Did you read their decisions? This guy obviously didn't.
  • @ATOBecerra
    Those regulatory agencies are supposed to carry out the enforcement of legislation, but not write legislation! We elect representatives to do that, not to delegate that function… what are talking about?!
  • @steve5133
    Feneral agencies DO NOT have the power to interpret laws, that is the job of the judicial system. That is the purpose of checks and balances. Ambiguity in laws means that they can twist an interpretation to their needs.
  • @user-zn6qh8ur8b
    Chevron was the worst case against our Republic freedoms since Terry v Ohio
  • @PyroRob69
    Haha, it didn't do any damage to the govt, except it now requires Congress to create law, as the Constitution requires. It doesn't allow the govt to run wild with their interpretations that fit the political mood of the day. This is a great day for liberty in our great United States.
  • What a despicible liar!!!! Stopping unelected bureaucrats from essentially being able to make any laws they want helps insure our democracy. It's the very definition of the word.
  • @aa-hj2fd
    Congress makes the laws; The Executive branch enforces these laws; the Judiciary makes sure that laws are Constitutional. It sucks that that Congress now has to do a better job at making laws, but that is the system. No more passing the buck.
  • @syrtycon7299
    The only established law that matters is The Constitution.
  • @stevend474
    Oh no the Supreme Court told congress they have to stop violating the law and follow the constitution.