Chevron Overturned

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate and Adi Dynar discuss the Supreme Court's overturning of its 1984 Chevron doctrine, which held that courts should sometimes defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a vague law.
Among the topics covered:
• How Chevron gave the executive branch the power to make law, thereby incentivizing the passing of vague laws;
• How Chevron made it harder for individuals to challenge regulations;
• The majority opinion’s insufficient stress on the issue of the separation of powers;
• Why the argument that courts lack factual expertise is a smokescreen;
• How the practice of deference relies on a presumption in favor of government power;
• The Court's failure to articulate the principle of the rule of law;
• Why it is unlikely that this decision will cause legal chaos.
The podcast was recorded on July 3, 2024. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here.
0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:52 Chevron and vague laws
0:13:36 Individuals challenging regulations
0:21:05 The separation of powers issue
0:33:04 Courts and factual expertise
0:47:14 Practice of deference and government power
0:57:47 Articulating the principle of the rule of law
1:02:11 Unlikely legal chaos

[@kmeisenbach1]

40 Years of Chevron. Congrats to all of those who have put up the work to get it overturned.

[@kmeisenbach1]

Clarity in the Law vs. Faith, Feeling, Believing of a Bureaucrat.

[@simonphuket7782]

This was a good one! Adi is measured, extremely knowledgeable about the law and Objectivism which made his analysis sound. Onkar guided this conversation well. We were left with a better understanding of the implications of this judgment.

[@edbonz2]

Excellent podcast & analysis THANK YOU ARI. HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!! $

[@Patso65]

I was a senior in high school when this HORRIBLE ruling came out. I was shocked and dismayed, knowing the terrible effect it would have on our freedoms. Fast forward 40 years, this is a ground breaking decision and will have incredibly positive ramifications for our Constitutional Republic.

[@maryallene1]

Very valuable to me. Thanks!

[@zardozcys2912]

Excellent explanation. And great work in filling an amicus brief to get this result. Does this mean that ARI is now filling briefs in court to defend capitalism or was that an act of a private individual ?

[@mr.b5489]

This was not an act of ARI. This was an act of an individual who got training from ARI but is currently working for PLF.

[@yednekachewgeremew1886]

There is no notion of chevron with out subject's act explanation by him self u can't presume concept in behalf of a subject by predicating his act just.... like singing it fells nothing with out me by Eminem 😂

[@bloocheez3]

none of that made sense