They aren't focusing on the contents of a specific case because there are multiple. And they link to articles that explain the contents of each of those cases.

What the article is doing however is mostly providing historical context for these cases and how they are potentially dangerous given the supreme court's recent change in philosophy.

They buried the lead. This is all really about Chevron doctrine which gives a large amount of deference to administrative agencies. The current court has indicated they might be willing to overturn Chevron which would mean rule making would be more constrained by the governing legislation. There is a lot of regulation that would come under scrutiny under a different standard. The real question everyone is missing is how much quasi legislative authority should be granted to the administrate state.

The NLRB debate is not really about that. It's about leadership which can only be fired for cause.

Germane quote from a document referenced in the article:

> “Contemporary fights about labor are also inherently fights about constitutional law—about the rights to which citizens and residents are entitled, about governmental powers and structure, and ultimately about how we constitute ourselves as a nation,” Andrias wrote.

It depends a lot on which judges you ask. That is kind of the point: it's not a resolvable question. There is no one true perfect interpretation which is correct.

And a huge part of America is braying mad to tear down governance & institutions. Now that they have so many of their people in such high seats of power, a bullet from the blue could come and topple any institution or governance.

Known legal expert "vice media"