This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor ruling. Perhaps this ruling is impossible to hold to, but maybe the executive branch decides to usurp the court of its own volition. Then what?
The checks and balances system of our government only works when everyone plays nice. But if push comes to shove, then the executive branch is the one that holds all the power. They don't have to obey the legislator nor the judiciary -- neither has any real capability to enforce their will.
The country has been slow rolling into single pillar government structure for decades now. IMHO, this ruling is a huge step towards solidifying the executive branch as the de facto sole branch of government. Government agencies were provided a mechanism for all three branches of government to work together, legislators provided scope and leadership, the judiciary provided checks, and the executive provided the operations.
Once the agencies are all gutted, a future administration is going get an opportunity to act on their own via executive authority and they will ignore any attempts by the court to stop them, because the court is literally powerless in all but word. And that's what opens the door to a president who begins seizing assets of political opponents.
Lots of authoritarian countries masquerade as democracies because legislators and judiciaries are inherently powerless to stop executives.
I know plenty of people will counter with the old way was supporting an authoritarian executive. But to them, I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it.
The agency system you are advocating for has only a few decades of history. Chevron was a 1984 decision, and didn’t really rise to prominence until the Obama administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....
That’s what Chevron deference is about. There is no law on the books that gives the FTC authorization to ban non-competes. They just argued that it kinda-sorta fell within the scope of their expertise and did it.
That is by and large how the government has been run for the last decade and a half. It is not how the government has run for most of the last 100 years as you claim. Most of that time period the agencies stuck to the letter of the law, only deviating in rare circumstances.
Sure there is; it's the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
They, through the regulatory process, correctly determined that non-competes are unfair methods of competition.
> But prior to Obama’s administration, it was really rare the agencies would enforce policies with no basis in the law whatsoever.
Obama's administration changed the makeup of the court with his loss of Scalia's seat, failure to pressure RBG to resign, and Trump's subsequent picks; that's what changed. The regulatory setup long predates his presidency. Chevron fell because the court got extra conservative members, nothing more.
Not really. Do you think "Unfair" has an objective definition? Just saying something is unfair won't make it automatically or objectively unfair. Non competes are not deceptive.
It may be covered but the point it is not logically implied by the text you quoted.
Compare that with the objectivity of this (still contains a lot subjectivity):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html...
The first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission
Chevron was a failed attempt at knocking that setup down.
Nothing in this decision "guts" the agencies.
The ruling is literally the opposite.
The power is put in the hands of the courts and it is take away from the executive appointed agencies.
Congress has ultimate authority, period. So the SCOTUS running amok is a very bad look and smell.
Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.
America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president.
Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958.
edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.
You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months.
Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies.
I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.
My theory is that liberals were made mentally dull by the Warren court, that it created this unacknowledged model of government within their minds where all actual controversies are low level, and will eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, who will simply dictate the consensus liberal opinion to be the law.
It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family. To fill in the gaps, the country is otherwise ruled through executive orders, and all resulting injustices from this system are to be straightened out by the Supreme Court. That world is very much gone, and nobody has adjusted because all of their theories on liberal governance come from a period during which this was close enough to true (although gradually less and less after Warren.) It is not now true. We (and liberals) can stop worshiping the members of the Supreme Court now, and simply treat them as smart, connected people writing opinions that we may or may not agree with, instead of some holy chamber of wizened elders.
It's profoundly anti-democratic. It's an exact counterpart to the theocrats on the conservative side, but not grounded in anything but current upper middle-class trends and a belief in Whig history to replace the belief in gods.
If we can't fix Congress, and get them to actually govern, there's no government worth saving. I'm not going to fight for the right of the president to unilaterally declare war, rule by executive order and Supreme Court dictates, or the actual functioning of the country to be delegated to unaccountable regulatory agencies. Doesn't spark joy.
edit: I think the existence of the Senate probably adds to the level of liberal cynicism about democracy. It should really be abolished or directly elected in a way unconnected with the states. We already have a geographically based body in the House. The Senate is clearly a distortion of democracy, like a sensory homunculus for representative government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representa...)
> It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family.
And they call anything that takes power away from this unelected shadow government "anti-democratic."
Our political class getting lazy and stopping doing the hard half of their jobs (effectively communicating and building national consensus) and instead adopting Jon Stewart levels of discourse and you get where we are today.
Don't you mean schoolyard bullies?
Because that's how much of the world, including your allies, view the US.
Then again, seeing the state of the US police force, maybe that's why US people think bullying and policing is the same thing?
To be confused about this at this point reveals either profound ignorance or extreme motivated reasoning.
That’s why it’s “not guilty” or “acquitted” as opposed to “innocent”
One can absolutely draw their own conclusions separately from what the obvious sycophants in the Senate ruled.
You’re free to take the position that the timeline and transcripts from the call are overruled by your belief in Trump’s and the Senate GOP’s integrity, but that’s not the only reasonable interpretation of events.
But while I do agree NATO allies should spend 2% or more on the militaries in a good faith effort, the spending value itself is kind of a dumb metric if for nothing other than they could just spend money and have poorly trained militaries anyway. It’s a rallying point to be angry about by people who didn’t know what NATO even was before Trump started complaining about it.
Going back to the awareness issue, the United States and allies across the world have been working to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, and potentially elsewhere like the Baltic states or other formerly occupied Soviet Union states. Many of those in leadership in Europe and elsewhere are concerned about Trump because they do not, for good reason, trust him to act faithfully on the commitments that the United States has made in Europe.
Vladimir Putin believes that the United States and its influence should be degraded in Europe and that European states should instead be under the influence of Russia. This is a net negative for the United States obviously, and the concern here is that Donald Trump seems to either agree or find himself apathetic toward this because he doesn’t seem to understand that he’s being played for a fool to the detriment of the United States and European partners.
To try and paint a more clear picture, if the United States were to fail to honor its security commitments to Europe, it calls into question the ability of the United States to honor any strategic commitment. This pulls not just European countries closer to Russian influence, but causes the United States a massive headache in the Pacific as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (never mind the Philippines or others in South East Asia) stand to be sucked into the sphere of Chinese influence which means that the United States loses military, diplomatic, and economic capabilities and leverage.
You might say “so what?” and to that I’d say you’ll find our country worse off economically, higher prices for many goods, and whatever meager international influence exists today to cooperate on global or regional issues will be significantly degraded.
We're at the scale now where majority rule at the federal level will usually leave 170 million people unhappy. If we can't get anything done at the federal level that might be a sign that we've hit the maximum size+diversity threshold for a functioning democracy and it's time to resolve more of our issues at a smaller, more local level.
There are major power imbalances in the country and it is not sustainable. The path we are on leads to a breakup of the country or a rewriting of the Constitution. The status quo is not sustainable.
For those in the sway of the Federalist Society, that's a feature, not a bug.
This SCOUTS ruling means there will be *significantly more* ambiguity and instability in the federal government. *More* things will be up for destabilization by Republican activist judges. The outcome will be a government that works less efficiently and effectively.
This is the Republican play book: purposely make the government worse, distract with absurd claims, then come election time lie and say that the Democrats want to make the Republican's version of bad government even more expansive. Every four to eight years, the Democrats clean up the Republican's mess. Government gets better. Then Republicans lie again and the cycle repeats.
You may already understand this, but just to make it explicit: the Democrats are not the good guys in this process. They benefit just as much as Republicans from good government being perpetually on the brink. They win the presidency because we're terrified of what Republicans will do if they don't. The system is currently structured to reward both sides for brinkmanship and that's why it sucks.
We need a system that reduces the amount of change riding on any single election and neither party wants a change to such a system. If SCOTUS is as much an extension of the Republican party as people here assume then I think we'll find in 30 years that they badly shot themselves in the foot.
Make no mistake about it, this is about giving more power to the powerful, and it's working. This is the swan song of America if we don't wake up.
With such a vibrant public democracy as America, things that drag out, like allowing non-competes for fast food workers, are best served with public participation, a long process, and sunlight.
It's not as tightly coupled to a presidential administration as you may think, that's where "Deep State" grumbling comes in: if it's imposed by presidential fiat, its in violation of a 1000 mundane things that courts have historically consistently enforced: a long, public, process with a thorough cost/benefit analysis that indicates a net benefit. So, the "Deep State" (administrative processes that are required to occur for a rule change at an administrative agency, to whom authority was delegated to by the legislature) prevents a unilateral presidency.
Parsing through the FTC press release on non-competes provides some indica of the sunlight/processes involved. [1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
It won't. People will just suffer while federal workers sit around twiddling their thumbs, because they no longer have the power to figure out how to carry out their missions. And then this will be used to label their jobs as "waste" in order to justify shutting down their agencies. Tada, the real aim of vaporizing regulators and government services achieved.
If you found our perennial government shutdown circus entertaining, you're in for a treat.
> If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws
It won't. One of our political parties is hell bent on removing rights, reducing protections on workers, the environment, everything. They want a significantly smaller federal government. They wield enough power that there is no way that, for example, if Congress had to do all of the EPA's rulemaking jobs, anything would actually get passed.
States have some ability to take this on (for now, at least). California's vehicle emission standards, which end up being the de-facto national standards, are one example. But I could easily see conservative SCOTUS not letting this stand, and coming up with bullshit reasons why those rules are unenforceable.
And this is a part of the problem. The conservatives cry "states' rights!" at every turn, but they are still quick to strike down (at a federal level) things that progressive states do that they don't like. The other part of the problem is that there are quite a few policy things that you can't leave to a patchwork of states to decide for themselves. You need national unity for it to matter.
> It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out.
Awesome, by the time that happens, I'll be an old man unlikely to see any of the benefits of it eventually becoming sorted out.
More likely, I expect Trump to win this fall, and he'll dismantle and destroy the executive branch, and further degrade any trust in institutions that we have left.
...
One thing I do think would help would be to fix representation in the House. House membership was regularly expanded as the nation's population grew, but has been left static for over a century now. One of the more reasonable methods I've seen for determining the total number of seats in Congress would have us at around 700 now[0] (vs. the 435 we actually have).
There are a lot of options here, and it can be instructive to look at other countries for comparison. The UK has a fifth of the US's population, but their House of Commons has 650 members. But on the other end of the spectrum, India, with a population 4x that of the US, has a lower Parliament chamber with a maximum of only 552, though that's a constitutional requirement and perhaps harder to change. Anyhow, if we were more like the UK, the US House would have around 3,250 members (a quite nice ~100k constituents per representative). That's probably a bit too unwieldy? But if we were more like India, the US house would shrink to 135, which is almost certainly far too few (mind-boggling ~2.5M constituents per representative).
Not only would a larger House mean better representation for constituents (both being more proportional, and having each representative represent fewer people), but it would mean larger committees, and more people to tackle various rulemaking jobs that are currently handled by executive agencies. I do expect that a larger, more proportional House would end up being more left-leaning, so I'm obviously biased at least somewhat in my desire for this to happen. (As an aside, would fewer constituents per Congressional district make gerrymandering more difficult? Intuitively I think so, though I have no real basis for believing that.)
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/28/danielle-... (cube-root method)
In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post-Dobbs, with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else.
Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people.
Either way—federally or at the state level—we need written laws drafted by elected representatives in a body that has more inertia than the single position of chief executive.
Or, perhaps, we just need to alter some aspects of that government to run better. For example: changing the size of the House of Representatives to make it more representative. It wasn't supposed to be stuck at 435.
Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government.
You have my full agreement on that! Unfortunately that's not going to happen at the national level any time soon, both parties benefit from first-past-the-post too much. We'll see better luck experimenting with it at the local and state level.
I imagine there are some seriously distraught teachers in that state right now.
We are in dark times.
And for reference, there has already been trends of this occurring. The Texas bounty hunter law for women who have abortions is an example, where they have tried to sue other states for records pertaining to abortions (See: Texas vs Seattle Children's Hospital).
The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.
Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
I'd also prefer a more practical example to argue with.
IMHO my shift on this is due to the practical examples seen over the years, legislature delegating to an agency they create, with judicial review, ends up being a good thing.
I'm honestly unaware of any unjust rule-making that ended up unfairly trampling someone, much less whip-lash back and forth.
What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way.
I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.
Anything passed by the legislative that tries to end run that delegation is simply not even a law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. What is explicit within it overrides everything else.
Congress is like the product manager and creates something like the URS (user requirements specification).
The executive branches like the developer team that has to Turn those high-level requirements into detailed implementation plans.
The judiciary is typically the quality assurance and auditing team. They make sure that the executive branch hasn’t gone way past the initial requirements and they also check to make sure the initial requirements make sense and don’t cause other problems.
You meant to say "extremely wealthy citizens." The power vacuum that comes with less government is always filled-in by people with the most resources. And those sorts of people only see the non-wealthy as objects to be exploited for them to acquire even more wealth.
Why didn't those super powerful vacuum-fillers carry the day in the Civil Rights Movement, or when marginal income tax rates were 90+%, or when the EPA was created? Because they don't have the power that everyone thinks they do (maybe even they think they have, themselves).
I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.
The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.
This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
Isn't that just the default assumption of all regulatory law? e.g. when the FDA adds an ingredient labeling requirement, there's no expectation that the FDA has to pay for the costs of adding the labels. When the EPA says "hey you can't dump your waste in this river" they don't have to pay the cost of getting rid of it in a compliant way. This doesn't strike me as an abuse at all.
> I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.
But it isn't, the world changes, writing laws that anticipate these changes is equivalent to predicting the future. Take for example laws to regulate the telephone networks, those networks over time changed from carrying voice traffic to including data to carrying data exclusively (and voice just being data). So even if we believe the networks are effectively the same, Congress now has to waste their time to write new laws to keep up with those technological advances (and telecom is by far from the only area, what about new medical therapies that we hadn't imagined previously. Should Congress write new laws for these? ) essentially this is the way to paralyze it.
> The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.
I don't see what is shocking about it. Are you shocked that you have to pay for your rubbish collection (which is a requirement for living in many places)?
> This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
It seems like people don't understand how the system works.
Congress cries about Roe vs. Wade, but the power is entirely in their hands to pass federal law to secure abortion rights.
It's like the police crying that someone should do something about crime.
That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the federal government can be completely undone based on the results of a single nationwide election that we have every four years. It means that every right, every process, every plan that interacts with the federal government in any way has a four-year shelf life.
Government by administrative rule is why no one is getting too excited about non-competes getting banned or non-solicitation agreements curtailed. It's why I'm nervous about the future of the IRS's free tax filing software. It's why there are whole industries built up around trying to keep up with the latest about-face that the executive branch has made.
The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. It sucks for anyone who gets used to a benefit only to have it stripped out with an administrative change. It sucks for anyone who's trying to plan anything out on a longer timetable than four years.
If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws that can't just be upended with the next presidential election or if it forces states to start taking on the role that the federal government has hitherto failed to fill then in the long run this ruling will be better for everyone. It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out.