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.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.

    It’s a big club. You aren’t in it. I’m not in it. everyone you or I know isn’t in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren’t in the club.

    How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?

    You take it from them.

  • Amanda@aggregatet.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it these days. They ruled recently that they are legally allowed to accept bribes, so long as the bribe comes after the decision is made.

        The laws of the United States of America are literally for sale by conservative judges. This breach of justice is actively dismantling a cornerstone of our countries successful history.

        Oh, the irony, that the “conservative” party is the one radically destroying the highest court in America. Their supporters can wave all the flags they want this week, but what they represent is actively destroying this country.

        It’s FOR the people BY the people, not for the highest bidder. at least, that’s how it used to be before Trump’s presidency.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They interpret the law. And when existing law has bad policy outcomes people get made that 9 unelected lawyers in robes aren’t legislating for us. When the out comes are good people don’t hear about them or forget them.

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    But both sides are the same.

    God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn’t be getting this free reign. Fuck.

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wish Gore had won, every other headline wouldn’t be about the impending climate doom and what we’re not doing to stop it

      Oh wait, he DID win and the fucking court stole it

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should’ve run, she’s directly responsible for Trump.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      TBH with how Obama treated Netanyahu versus Trump admin backing single state solution: I bet the war on the Gaza Strip wouldn’t be happening, either. Not at the same scale, at least.

    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s called Congress. Too bad they are made up of spineless, greedy pieces of shit to do anything about any of this.

  • antler@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe an unpopular opinion here on lemmy, but I think this is a good thing.

    Chevron is a good idea in theory, give experts in regulating a specific thing more leeway to manage that. Problem is if you give a bureaucratic agency an inch they become maniacal dictators. They start calling bees a kind of fish and a puddle in your backyard a lake, they randomly change up their own decisions making normal people criminals overnight or vice versa, and sometimes they even just try to make their own rules.

    If you want a law then make a law, don’t have an unelected bureaucrat issue an edict. If the legislative branch is a mess the solution is to fix the mess, not hand off their powers to the executive branch. Again, if used by level headed people it would have been great, but eventually after so many decisions that would sound too comical for a parody we can’t have nice things anymore.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        iirc they DID classify bees as fish but only because it was the only way they could enact any kind of protections for them.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.

      Will be?

      I haven’t had any interest in visiting the place since Bush was president.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Democracy isn’t when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.