[Please do not Quote]The homelessness is now a crime thing? Yup, that will be very bad with rent just gong straight up. If you mean this for the Star Trek thing:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District Stuff is going to get real bad and public defenders are going to have even more difficult times dealing with it without any additional resources....
As for Chevron, I tend to avoid legal questions online, because the trolls are just overwhelming along with the fake "experts"/propoganda and believe it or not Chevron (unintentionally to the Republicans pushing it under Reagan in 1984) countered the real world equivalent of that .... It let scientists, doctors, and experts fill in blanks in statutory laws passed by congress that congress puts there. Now, ... that's way harder. When the Chevron Rule worked for Republicans it was "great," but when it did not, it was "bad."
If you want the details or the TL;DR version then below or the end.... If you take legal advice online, you're dumb, and this is not legal advice because most like me who actually get it don't have time to go through all the actual implications of this and several who pretend to oversimplify it to the point of uselessness.
Chevron What happened: 1977 Congress amends Clean Air Act of 1963. Requires any "stationary source" of air pollution to pass EPA "new-source review." EPA interprets "source" covering nearly any change at factory or plant, a single machine, smokestack boiler, etc. was "source" & triggered test. 1981, with Ronald Reagan current POTUS, EPA changed interpretation of "source" as only the entire plant or factory (less strict, favored big business under Republican president). Means less review/testing for air pollution. Big companies abused this to avoid "new source review," by (usually lying) about other changes to reduce overall emissions by the "same amount." More industrial projects, less air pollution testing, more air pollution. No industries do NOT care about air pollution without some intervention
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/deadly-donora-smog-1948-spurred-environmental-protection-have-we-forgotten-lesson-180970533/1981 environmental group sues. 1984, SCOTUS issues 6-0 unanimous decision republicans under Regan LOVED Chevron....SCOTUS ruled Congress' intentional ambiguity delegated the EPA "policy decision" power on what "source" meant in the Clean Air Act. Ironically, Chevron decision emphasized the U.S. Judiciary was not a political branch of government and federal judges should not set policy.
What was the Chevron method/test: Two part test: 1, did Congress speak directly to the precise issue in question and 2.) "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." They Agency had experts, doctors, scientists, that went through a whole formal rule making process debating and addressing public comments, etc.
If you want the exact text:
First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
— Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.
Congress could always (and sometimes did) pass a new law if it ever disagreed with an agency interpretation by experts, or it could otherwise have the agency change its mind through funding, etc. Congress was never out of the loop in its delegated authority to agencies. Chevron has been dying since the "Major Question Doctrine" was introduced largely in 2022. And this is part of what messed up Biden's student loan forgiveness in Biden v. Nebraska... (This is why you didn't get $10K or more forgiven...) when the Department of Education used the Heroes Act, and all that. Again, this is more recent longstanding precedent overturns so it was not really predicable how it would shake out.... It should have gone through under almost 40 years of precedent.... But then... more overturning, etc.
TL;DR; You don't want any technical stuff?. Chevron was a Republican favored thing that worked for Reagan. It worked for Republicans because the EPA (started by Nixon, a Republican) loosened the pollution rules with Reagan appointees. The lower courts like the D.C circuit tried to step in and say they couldn't do that with the "notorious RBG" (Ruth Bater Ginsburg who would later wind up on the SCOTUS). SCOTUS's Chevron decision slapped that down and kept the relaxed EPA rule. When Chervon stopped working for republicans, because scientists and experts got involved in agency decisions, they turned against it (when agencies started using science and method instead of just dictates from the top). Before Chevron, you'd argue in court for years over the meaning of everything. After Chevron, a whole group of scientists/doctors would debate the issue with public comments addressed to form the rule based on expertise with required answering of public questions. Now, you're going to have to go in front of a federal judge and we all know that is going to favor the deep pockets (e.g. Fisheries who want to overfish. Polluters who want to over pollute, food processing plants who don't want to pay for pest control so rats get in, FDA determinations of what is safe, etc.). Revoking Chevron absolutely does not "make it so the governing statute is what you use." You always used the governing statute, and if the experts were against the statutory law they got smacked down. They got listened to if they weren't against the statutory law as written. Chevron let the experts actually weigh in on any gaps congress left on purpose. Now.... good luck with that.... I want the food scientist and the doctor who work for the FDA determining the "minimum safe rodent incident" in a "food processing plant" based off multiple peer reviewed studies, expert discussion and public comment, rather than an un elected federal judge second guessing it because the food processing plant owner does not want to pay to keep the rats out of the food processing vats holding the food. That's what we have now though with Chevron revoked....
If you think I'm wrong that this will be a flaming crap show, let me just say that nursing home operation companies are just chomping at the bit to get rid of minimum staffing requirements to actually hire and pay people to take care of their residents (Note, this is not the staff of medical professionals as the problem, but the greedy for profit companies that don't want to pay the nurses):
https://www.mcknights.com/news/with-the-wicked-witch-of-regulation-dead-nursing-home-staffing-rule-could-follow/That's right, the big healthcare companies don't want to hire enough nurses to care for you or pay them.... They will throw money at getting rid of the agency rule saying they have to hire and pay a minimum number of people to care for you.... It gets worse. Congress did not specify, because they trusted healthcare regulators to figure it out and congress will never agree on anything. That's right, big business does not want to hire and pay a minimum amount of staffing nurses to care for you and they hate the agency rule that makes them.... They wasted no time saying it in their trade papers....
This will be a major issue....
[Please do not Quote]
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14910179 times)