Podcast | Will The Supreme Court Overturn Chevron?

On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce-two cases that ask whether the Court should overrule its precedent in the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on KZbin: kzbin.info...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...

[@reginaldwashington204]

First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[@janetmarugg9424]

The thought that Marjorie T Greene can decide how much mercury or lead can be in my water is terrifying. Scientists and experts have already been supported by taxes (educational institutions, infrastructure, etc) why not get our money's worth?

[@MIKAEL212345]

because we live in a democracy not a technocracy. Part of living in a democracy is that people you don't like are gonna makes decisions you don't like.

[@shankarp838]

Great discussion! Providing more examples of cases where Chevron resulted in absurd government overreach would have been helpful. I just heard two in the episode: a. bees being categorized as fishes and b. dry land being categorized as wetlands. I wish there were more. Additionally, some answers to the following questions would have been great. What was the consequence for the plaintiff in those two cases? How did it benefit the bureaucracy? Are there examples where the doctrine resulted in bloated bureaucracy? How do other countries handle such ambiguities in the laws? What lessons can we take from them? Are there examples of interpretations where expertise was required, and the bureaucracy took a "good" decision? Are there examples where the decisions were political in nature?