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.

  • Amanda@aggregatet.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 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
      122
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 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
        43
        ·
        5 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.

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

          For some justices, I agree. However, as a general principle, I think of the vast majority of “bad people” as incompetent rather than malicious unless there’s proof of guilt. I don’t know enough about all 9 justices to comfortably say they’re evil or corrupt.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It’s not about “bad people” or incompetence. It’s about fundamentally violent and corrupt systems of controlling humanity and destroying the planet for personal gain…

            This rube goldberg system of injustice was literally invented by slavers.

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ironic considering everything they’re “overturning” is former Supreme Court rulings that granted all these rights.

    • Fuzemain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      5 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.