Among incredibly stupid court opinions, overturning Chevron takes the cake
The US “Supreme” Court has just issued an opinion that would overturn Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, ensuring more government gridlock and casting activist judges in the place of career scientists to decide specific answers to some of the most crucial questions of the day, such as those related to climate emissions and other environmental issues.
Among many incredibly stupid opinions the court has issued recently, this is among the stupidest, and we’re going to go into why.
Just two days after issuing an opinion that would legalize the kind of corrupt bribes that they themselves have taken, and one day after once again ignoring the Clean Air Act and claiming that the federal government can’t regulate interstate emissions, the Court issued an opinion today in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo that would invalidate a previous ruling, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.
The original Chevron case was actually decided in favor of Chevron. Reagan’s EPA, which at the time was administered by Neil Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch, had attempted to ease regulations on oil companies, which NRDC sued over. The court decided that the EPA’s interpretation would stand, giving Anne Gorsuch and the oil companies a big win.
The Chevron case created what’s called “Chevron deference,” which means that when a law is unclear in its details, courts should defer to reasonable interpretation of professionals in a government agency as to what those details mean. This doesn’t mean that agencies can make it up as they go along, just that they can fill in the blanks left by Congress.
In the last four decades, this ruling has become the foundation of much of administrative law in this country.
After all, legislators in Congress aren’t scientists, so will often pass a law saying something like “the EPA should regulate harmful air pollutants,” and leave it up to the EPA to decide what pollutants those are and how they should be regulated, and how those regulations should change over time.
Judges also aren’t scientists, so it’s reasonable for judges to defer to interpretation by professionals who have a lot of data and take a lot of time to craft specific regulations when they are told to do so by the legislature. In the course of crafting and updating those regulations, things will come up which were not anticipated by Congress, and someone needs to make that decision.
Agencies like EPA or NOAA, who work with some of the world’s most respected climate scientists, are a great place to go to find up to date recommendations and answers to those questions. And Chevron deference is what has allowed these agencies to work properly for the last several decades, and is what ensures they can continue to work as we confront climate change, the largest problem humanity has ever caused.
This sort of deference is essentially necessary for effective government. And any lawyer or law student can tell you how important it has been in establishing the last several decades of administrative law.
And it has benefitted electric vehicles, for example by allowing the EPA to set emissions rules that will save lives and money, or allowing the IRS to tweak guidance on the EV tax credit to make accessing it easier for consumers.
Without Chevron deference, it would mean that reasonable rules to smooth out implementation of laws can be challenged and reinterpreted by individual judges who are ignorant of the issues involved – and plaintiffs, likely in the form of a big polluting company who wants to skirt regulations to harm you more, can go forum shopping to find a specific judge who they know ahead of time will rule in their favor and against the public interest.
To be clear, Chevron deference only applies to situations where law is ambiguous, and where the agency’s interpretation was reasonable and arrived at through proper government processes – adhering to public comment requirements and the like. If an agency interpretation is arbitrary, it could still be thrown out. This is all covered in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and in previous court rulings narrowing Chevron.
Court’s opinion creates more gridlock, is “dictatorship from the bench”
But now, in the court’s opinion, the foundation of administrative law in this country for decades should all be gone. In Raimondo, the court opined on the validity of an NOAA regulation on the fishing industry. Lower courts in fact did not rely fully on Chevron deference in their rulings, finding that the statute was not ambiguous in the first place. But the Court took this opportunity to opine on Chevron anyway, despite its limited applicability to the facts of this case.
Under the Court’s opinion today, rather than unbiased career scientists weighing in on complex issues and helping to fill in the blanks that Congress didn’t anticipate or understand, that responsibility would now lie in the hands of oft-ignorant politically-appointed judges. These judges will be called on to make decisions on the suitability of specific regulations in any number of fields they are not qualified in: air quality, technology, labor regulations, tariff policy, farm subsidies, housing development, privacy, and many more issues that they know nothing about.
In short, it means more gridlock of the type Americans hate, and it means more “activist judges” that everyone claims to dislike. Even in the ideal situation envisioned by defenders of today’s decision, where a non-gridlocked Congress is able to quickly answer any agency question with a new law that the body comes together to agree upon, there will still be ambiguities and inefficiencies from having to consult another non-professional body for ambiguous scientific questions.
If you were tired of government waste and inefficiency, bogged-down court systems that take years to get anything done (in direct violation of the 6th amendment), then boy howdy, guess what’s coming next.
You know that “legislating from the bench” you’ve heard of? This is it, explicitly. The Court has opined that it should have final responsibility for crafting each and every regulation, even if it’s on a topic they know nothing about (or worse, maybe it’s a topic they have a direct personal interest in, and yet will rule on anyway).
It also means less participatory government. Agencies already were not allowed to go off script and make up whatever they wanted. Deference was only given if their interpretations were reasonable, were related to a question not answered explicitly in the law in question, and were arrived at after seeking comment from stakeholders (the public, industry, scientists, and so on). The Court could already throw out unreasonable interpretations or ones that engaged in arbitrary & capricious rulemaking (or the Court could just make up their own nonsense, as they’ve done before).
Now, the Court has officially interposed itself in front of the public and its elected officials in both the executive and legislative branches. Instead of voters, scientists, trade and public interest organizations, unions, and so on having a say, now it’s just an unelected court who will have their way – five of whom were appointed by people who lost their respective presidential elections, by ~500 thousand and ~3 million votes respectively.
Worse than “legislating from the bench,” this is a dictatorship of the bench. The bench has decided that theirs is the entire purview of both the executive and legislative branches.
And it was just waiting for a case where it could do so – because Neil Gorsuch (another illegitimate appointee, who wrote his own concurring opinion today) has wanted to overturn Chevron for a long time. He pre-judged this case long ago, well before the specifics of this case came along, and has just been waiting to implement his judgment. This is generally considered a violation of jurisprudence.
As has often recently been the case, the court shows complete ignorance of not only the legal and governmental issues that their opinion will cause, but ignorance of their own recent actions. Take this choice quote from today’s opinion:
Chevron insists on more than the “respect” historically given to Executive Branch interpretations; it demands that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations, including those that have been inconsistent over time, see id., at 863, and even when a pre-existing judicial precedent holds that an ambiguous statute means something else, National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 982. That regime is the antithesis of the time honored approach the APA prescribes.
In this passage, John Roberts claims that agency interpretations are deficient because they are “inconsistent over time.” Nevermind that agency interpretations are necessarily inconsistent, given that the world and technology changes (e.g., as technology advances, more efficient vehicles become more practical and therefore tighter emissions limits become possible), but Roberts ignores his own court’s inconsistency on all sorts of matters in this passage.
His opinion would invalidate several decades of administrative law, and has left lawyers today wondering how it will even be possible to do their job with this grenade thrown right into the center of the field.
If a government body should have its toys taken away for inconsistency, then what Roberts is arguing here is that he himself should be ignored.
In that part of the opinion, at least, we agree. Roberts and his illegitimate court are the antithesis of effective government, and are not working in the interest of law and order or in favor of the public. Their opinions should be treated as just that – opinions, from private individuals who are clearly not interested in law or government.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Toyota’s new electric SUV is a surprise hit in China. Starting at just $15,000, the Toyota bZ3X is already the top-selling joint venture brand EV.
The $15,000 Toyota bZ3X is the top-selling foreign EV
After launching the bZ3X in March, Toyota’s joint venture, GAC Toyota, claimed that orders were “so popular that the server crashed.” It apparently secured over 10,000 orders in the first hour.
In its second month on the market, the bZ3X was the top-selling foreign-owned vehicle in China, beating out the Volkswagen ID.3 and ID.4 Crozz, Nissan N7, and BMW i3.
According to the latest update, the electric SUV retained the title once again in June. Peng Baolin, General Manager of Sales at GAC-Toyota, revealed on social media that the “delivery volume of Bozhi 3X in June reached 6,030 units.”
GAC Toyota announced on Weibo that cumulative deliveries have now exceeded 20,000 units, setting a new record for the fastest joint venture electric SUV sales to achieve the feat.
The company also claimed that the bZ3X “has the highest sales of new energy vehicles” among joint venture brands right now.
The bZ3X is Toyota’s “first 100,000 yuan-level pure electric SUV.” It’s available in seven different trims, starting at 109,800 yuan, or about $15,000.
Two variants have an added LiDAR, making Toyota the first joint venture brand to offer it in China. The smart driving version starts at 149,800 yuan ($20,500). For 159,800 yuan ($22,000), you can upgrade to the range-topping “610 Max” trim.
Powered by a 67.92 kWh battery, the long-range model is rated with a CLTC range of up to 610 km (379 miles). The base “Air” trim features a 50.03 kWh battery, good for a 430 km (267 miles) range.
The bZ3X measures 4,645 mm in length, 1,885 mm in width, and 1,625 mm in height, or about the size of BYD’s popular Yuan Plus (sold overseas as the Atto 3).
Inside is a significant upgrade from most Toyota models we are used to seeing. It features a tech-focused interior with a 12.3″ infotainment screen and an 8.8″ driver display.
Toyota markets it as an affordable family SUV with “a mobile space that is as comfortable as home.” With all the seats folded, the interior offers nearly 10 feet (3 meters) of space.
It’s also powered by Momenta’s 5.0 smart driving system, offering advanced smart driving features such as Level 2 assisted driving, remote parking, and more.
Electrek’s Take
Although it may not seem like much with Chinese EV makers like Xiaomi securing nearly 300,000 orders for the YU7 SUV in an hour, the bZ3X is selling surprisingly well for a foreign brand vehicle.
Global automakers are struggling to keep pace in China with an influx of new low-cost domestic EVs and an intensifying price war. However, Japanese automakers, including Toyota, have been some of the hardest hit.
During GAC Toyota’s Tech Day event last month, the company announced partnerships with China’s leading tech companies, including Huawei, Xiaomi, and Momenta, as it seeks to regain market share.
Ahead of the event, the company posted on Weibo that “god-level allies are coming to help,” adding “car industry bigwigs are coming.
Through May, Toyota’s sales in China are up 7.7% from the same period last year, with 530,000 vehicles sold. Will Toyota continue gaining traction in the world’s largest EV market? With the bZ5 now rolling out and several new models on the way, Toyota is looking for a comeback.
Source: Sohu, GAC-Toyota
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
If you’re planning a summer camping trip or backyard cookout, or just want to be prepared for future blackouts, BLUETTI has you covered this Prime Day with up to 65% off portable power stations. And two standout models are turning heads: the all-new Elite 100 V2 and the powerhouse Elite 200 V2.
Electrek readers get an exclusive extra 5% off sitewide with the promo code ELECTREK5OFF, but act fast! These fantastic Prime Day deals only run until July 11.
Compact powerhouse: Elite 100 V2 (now in pre-order!)
Meet the newly launched Elite 100 V2 – BLUETTI’s latest iteration of the AC180 portable power station that packs serious performance in a smaller frame. It’s about 30% smaller than the AC180 yet still delivers a mighty 1,800W output and 3,600W surge capacity. That’s more than enough to handle your coffee maker, induction cooktop, and even a portable AC unit.
With 11 versatile outlets and 1,000W solar input, this little powerhouse is perfect for camping trips, picnics, tailgates, or short-term home backup. It recharges in as little as 70 minutes, making it ideal for quick outdoor stops or unexpected power cuts.
The Elite 100 V2 is available now for pre-order at the early-bird price of $399 plus an extra 5% off on Amazon and at Bluetti’s official store.
The backyard hero: Elite 200 V2 for just $699 (52% off!)
This one’s a total game-changer. With a massive 2,048Wh capacity and 2,400W output (3,900W surge), the BLUETTI Elite 200 V2 powers everything from electric grills and coffee makers to portable fridges and full camping kitchens. It’s great for family cookouts, rooftop movie nights, or camping with serious gear.
The best part? It runs at just 16dB, which is whisper quiet. And inside is a true EV-grade battery with a whopping 17-year lifespan. That’s power you can count on for the long haul.
The Elite 200 V2 is down to just $699 for Prime Day – that’s 59% off and the lowest price ever(!) on Amazon and at BLUETTI’s official store.
More Prime Day BLUETTI power deals until July 11
BLUETTI is going big this year with deep discounts across the board. Here are some more hot picks:
- AC70: Ultra-portable 768Wh station ideal for weekend outings, charging phones, laptops, and drones. $299 (50% off) on Amazon and on BLUETTI’s official store
- AC2A: Lightweight 204.8Wh unit under 8 lbs, perfect for on-the-go charging essentials. $139 (37% off) on Amazon and on BLUETTI’s official store
- AC200L: 2,048Wh unit built for rooftop movie nights or long backyard parties, expandable to 7.6kWh. $899 (44% off) on Amazon and on BLUETTI’s official store
- AC300 + B300K: Modular home battery backup with 3,000W output and expandable capacity up to 22kWh $1,299 (48% off) on Amazon and on BLUETTI’s official store
- AC500 + B300K: High-capacity 5,000W home backup system designed for larger families and serious outage prep. $1,699 (43% off) on Amazon and on BLUETTI’s official store
Whether you need portable power for camping (Elite 100 V2) or a versatile 2kWh powerhouse for multiple uses (Elite 200 V2), or serious home battery backup (AC300 or AC500), there’s a perfect BLUETTI deal for you.
Price protection and bonus savings
Worried about buying early? Don’t be. BLUETTI is offering price protection through Prime Day. If prices drop further, they’ll refund the difference. And don’t forget to use promo code ELECTREK5OFF for an extra 5% off sitewide.
Summer adventures, blackouts, or weekend tailgates – whatever power solution you need, BLUETTI has a product to match. But act fast: these Prime Day deals end July 11.
About BLUETTI
BLUETTI is a committed advocate for sustainability, embedding ESG principles into product design and corporate initiatives. Through programs like LAAF (Light An African Family), it delivers affordable, sustainable energy to African communities. Partnering with Leave No Trace and the Footprint Project (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit), BLUETTI supports responsible outdoor recreation and disaster relief with clean energy solutions that minimize environmental impact. This blend of quality, reliability, and practical focus has earned trust in over 110 countries and regions.
Follow BLUETTI on Twitter/X here and on Facebook here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk told Tesla’s biggest cheerleader on Wall Street, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, to ‘shut up’ and the reason why is absolutely ridiculous.
Dan Ives is one of the biggest pushers of Tesla’s stock on Wall Street. The Wedbush analyst can often bee seen on CNBC praising Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk.
He has one of the highest price targets on Tesla on Wall Street with $500 price per share.
After Tesla’s deliveries came way under his expectations and down 13% year-over-year in the first quarter, he reiterated his price target, which would value Tesla at over $1.5 trillion.
That’s even though Tesla’s net earnings have steadily declined over the last 2 years, and it is on track to start losing money within the next year.
Ives’ faith in Tesla stock is solely based on Musk and his promises of self-driving vehicles and robots. Just last month, he said that “Musk is the best asset of Tesla. We see him as CEO until 2030.”
You would think that Musk would like this guy, but no.
Ives took to X today to suggest that Tesla’s board should give Musk a new pay package giving him 25% control over the company.
If that were to be given through more stock options, it would virtually double his stake in Tesla and represent a $200 billion payday for Musk. In exchange, Ives is only suggesting that Musk, who runs several other companies and projects, should commit to spending a certain amount of time at Tesla and that the board has oversight on his involvement in politics.
In response to the analyst, who is one of Musk’s biggest fans and is suggesting Tesla gives him $200 billion, Musk told him to “shut up”:
Musk is seen as having complete control over Tesla’s board, which led to the rescinding of his 2018 CEO compensation package. One of the points that the judge brought up was that Tesla never even negotiated with Musk about committing his time at Tesla as part of the compensation package despite knowing the CEO already had roles at several other companies.
Now, Musk is also launching his own political party, in addition to his roles at SpaceX, X, xAI, The Boring Company, and Neuralink.
Electrek’s Take
Even Dan, who is a complete Musk sycophant, is not a big enough sycophant for Musk.
How do you tell a guy suggesting Tesla give you $200 billion to “shut up” just because he added some very mild conditions? What’s his thinking here? How dare he ask the board to do its job and supervise me? Doesn’t he know that I own the board?
The remarkable thing is that you know Musk could easily circumvent any conditions imposed by the board, and the mere fact that those conditions would have been in the contract could have helped it avoid being rescinded in the first place.
Musk’s behavior makes no sense. Honestly, he appears to be increasingly disconnected from reality.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike