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.
Bojangles, the North Carolina-based chain known for its fried chicken and biscuits, is joining the growing list of fast food chains installing EV chargers in their parking lots.
The restaurant chain is working with Smart Big Box, Alyath EV, and Energy and Environmental Design Services to install turnkey EV charging stations at a “wide range” of its 800 restaurants, which are concentrated heavily in the southeast US. The rollout starts in late 2025, with most chargers expected to be available by sometime in 2026.
Each Bojangles location getting EV chargers will offer at least four ports. The stations will vary between Level 2 and DC fast chargers.
Bojangles CIO Richard Del Valle said, “Working with Alyath and Smart Big Box allows us to introduce a new convenience that aligns with evolving customer needs.”
It’s a smart move. The charging stations will let people plug in and power up, and they’re more likely to dine at Bojangles while they’re doing so. Plus, Bojangles will get a reputation for having charging stations, so EV drivers will be more inclined to head toward the restaurants as a reliable power source.
Cristiane Rosul, CEO of Alyath, said the partnership “not only benefits EV drivers but also positions Bojangles as a leader in the future of quick-service dining.”
Smart Big Box has contracted with Energy and Environmental Design Services as the exclusive installer and maintenance partner for all EV chargers.
Read more: Waffle House is getting DC fast chargers – and it’s a genius move
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Toyota’s electric SUV is now its cheapest vehicle to lease. After slashing lease prices again, the Toyota bZ4X is listed for lease at just $199 per month in some states. That’s even cheaper than a Corolla right now, even though it’s nearly double the price.
Toyota bZ4X is now cheaper to lease than a Corolla
The 2025 Toyota bZ4X already starts at $6,000 cheaper than the previous model year, but with a new promotion this month, it’s even more affordable.
Toyota is at it again, having cut lease prices once more this month following the Fourth of July holiday. The 2025 Toyota bZ4X XLE is now listed at just $199 per month for 36 months. With $3,999 due at signing, you’ll end up paying an effective cost of $310 per month.
The offer is $42 less than before the new promo, or about a 12% price cut. It’s hard enough to find any lease nowadays around $300, but for an electric SUV, it’s a pretty good deal.
According to online auto research firm CarsDirect, it’s even cheaper to lease a bZ4X now in some states than a Toyota Corolla. The 2025 Corolla LE Sedan is available for $229 for 36 months. With $2,999 due at signing, the effective monthly rate is $312, or $2 more than the bZ4X.
Although $2 might not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, it’s pretty significant, given that the bZ4X is $16,000 more expensive.
The 2025 Toyota bZ4X XLE has an MSRP of $38,465, compared to the Corolla LE Sedan, which starts at $22,325. That’s a $16,140 cost difference alone.
Toyota’s electric SUV is slightly longer than a RAV4 at 184.6″ in length, but it has a longer wheelbase, which opens up more interior space.
Toyota is also throwing in a free year of unlimited charging (at EV-go-operated public charging stations) for those who buy or lease a new 2025 bZ4X. You can also add a ChargePoint home charger to the cost.
Although the bZ4X is available for just $199 per month, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 is listed at $179 nationwide this month. With more range, style, and an NACS port for charging at Tesla Superchargers, the 2025 IONIQ 5 offer is hard to pass up right now.
| 2025 Toyota bZ4X trim | Starting Price (excluding $1,395 DPH fee) |
Price reduction (vs 2024MY) |
Range (mi) |
| XLE FWD | $37,070 | -$6,000 | 252 |
| XLE AWD | $39,150 | -$6,000 | 228 |
| Limited FWD | $41,800 | -$5,380 | 236 |
| Limited AWD | $43,880 | -$5,380 | 222 |
| Nightshade | $40,420 | N/A | 222 |
Like many carmakers, Toyota is currently offering significant incentives on electric vehicles, with the federal tax credit set to expire at the end of September. Accordingly, Toyota’s promotion ends on September 30. Although the bZ4X doesn’t qualify for the credit through purchase, Toyota is passing it on through leasing.
In some areas, like LA, Toyota is currently offering $12,000 off bZ4X leases. With the loss of the tax credit, the savings would drop to just $4,500, which would add over $100 a month to the lease price.
Looking to take advantage of the savings while they are still here? You can use our link to find deals on the 2025 Toyota bZ4X in your area today.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Transport Canada has finished its investigation into Tesla’s questionable filing of $43 million worth of EV incentives in a single day, finding that the claims did indeed represent cars sold before the deadline to file for incentives – still raising questions about disorganization within Tesla.
To recap, Canada suddenly sunsetted its electric vehicle incentives back in January, as the program ran out of money. It caught a lot of EV dealers by surprise, and there was a sudden rush to sell cars and to file for incentives, given that the end of the program was announced with just three days notice.
One of these dealerships that showed a rush was a single Tesla dealership in Quebec, which recorded 4,000 rebate requests in a single weekend, an impossible number at the relatively small location. Other Tesla locations also filed for suspiciously high numbers of incentive claims on the same weekend.
This raised alarm bells, and other Canadian auto dealers pointed it out to Transport Canada, with Huw WIlliams, head of the Canadian Auto Dealers Association (CADA) claiming that Tesla “gamed the system” to hog an illegitimate number of incentive claims out of the limited money left. The total amount was $43 million, which was more than half of the amount left in the Canadian government’s coffers.
Even accounting for Tesla delivery pushes, and for increased sales as the credit rapidly sunset, these numbers did not seem possible.
This – perhaps combined with Tesla’s unpopular position in Canada at the time given CEO Elon Musk’s participation in a US government which was attacking Canada’s sovereignty at the time – led to Transport Canada announcing an investigation into Tesla’s incentive claims (Canadian Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland even said at the time that future Canadian ZEV incentives should exclude Tesla until the US’ “illegitimate and illegal” tariffs were lifted).
Tesla responded to the investigation in a typically standoffish manner, claiming in a letter that it was “shocked” to hear about the investigation, threatening legal action if payments weren’t resumed, and blaming Transport Canada for causing Tesla’s negative public perception and exposing Tesla’s Canadian employees to harassment (the letter did not, however, mention anything about CEO Musk’s government activities, or his recent actions attempting to spread white supremacy around the globe, and how those are much more responsible for negative public perception of the company).
Well now, the result of that investigation is back, and Freeland said on Friday that Tesla’s claims “were determined to legitimately represent cars sold before January 12.”
Transport Canada also pledged to CADA that all cars delivered before January 12 will have their incentive claims fulfilled, regardless of the program’s budget. CADA estimates it’s owed around $11 million in past-due claims, and Williams still wonders how Tesla knew to file those claims so suddenly.
Electrek’s Take
Questions still remain about this incentive. As pointed out by the Canadian Press, it’s still not clear whether Tesla’s incentive claims were for cars sold on that weekend, or for cars sold prior to that weekend and delivered all in a lump.
Given the physical limitations of the locations involved, it’s likely the latter. Which raises a different kind of alarm bell: that of disorganization within Tesla, as I pointed out as my main concern over this situation in a previous article.
I just don’t see how Tesla Canada can justify leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table for potentially several months, when all it took was the filing of some pieces of paper for them to get it. That’s capital that Tesla could have used to do business, and letting it sit in someone else’s bank account doesn’t benefit Tesla at all.
Now, disorganization is nothing new for Tesla, but businesses usually don’t like leaving money laying around for no reason. And Tesla, with its focus on quarterly results and end-of-quarter pushes, surely would have enjoyed having that extra cash in December, the end of a fiscal quarter/year, rather than the beginning of January when they filed for these incentives.
So regardless of the now proven legitimacy of these claims, this aspect should be cause for some amount of concern. It’s a reflection of a longtime problem in Tesla, where things tend to fall through the cracks until there’s some sort of emergency, and then it’s all-hands-on-deck from whoever happens to be closest to the problem at the time. But this has been an issue within Tesla for so long that it’s hard to see it being fixed at this point – and certainly not under its longtime CEO who seems far more interested in using Tesla to bail out his private companies or turning Twitter into “MechaHitler” than on making actual good decisions for Tesla.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
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
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike