[pininja]

I was curious about cases where this played a role. Looks like the namesake case was about EPA Clean Air Act enforcement in the 80s (the outcome being regulation), and then an FCC ruling to classify internet providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services” and avoid stricter regulation (the outcome being deregulation).

Overall, it seems the Chevron deference was a cornerstone of administrative law, affecting how agencies operate, how laws are enforced, and how the balance of power between branches of government was maintained. It’s not clear that this always led to more or less regulation. I’m curious what the impact of deference was beyond cases that made it to court?

[impalallama]

It seems like the biggest outcome is that as we all know Congress can't pass laws, so the judicial system just go a huge amount of power to interpret ambiguous laws (I'm not sure how controversial this but language is inherently ambiguous...).

I expect a lot of court shopping to judges in Texas to get favorable result to abscond with any regulatory oversight

[torstenvl]

Until today, most national policy was set by "experts," i.e., people whose careers, professional reputation, and emotional bonds are bound up in the industry. That is to say, the rich and connected in any given area of life. The SEC is staffed with "experts" in exchanging securities, i.e., successful traders, who are then expected to govern traders.

The inexorable result of this status quo is corruption and oligarchy.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congr...

[calgarymicro]

Ironic that you link to an article about the Gilens/Page study, which showed that it was in large part Congress that was unresponsive to popular opinion, not federal agencies like the SEC.

[torstenvl]

Fair. Please read as a cf. not a see.

[thuuuomas]

Corporate governance is also decided by “experts”, rife with corruption & oligarchy.

[fzeroracer]

Is Congress more or less corrupt than these experts?