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.
Zoox has announced a partnership with Resorts World Las Vegas, the first official agreement between a robotaxi provider and a Vegas resort property.
Zoox remains one of the more exciting autonomous rideshare developers we follow on Electrek. It may not be the largest or most expanded robotaxi company, but Zoox has something operating on roads that none of its competitors have been able to do—a purpose-built vehicle.
Earlier this month, Zoox announced an expansion of its testing fleet (not the purpose-built robotaxis) into its seventh US city, Atlanta. The expansion now includes Austin, Seattle, Miami, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
In the summer of 2023, Zoox expanded its robotaxi operations to Las Vegas, beginning on a one-mile loop at speeds up to 35 mph. By March 2024, Zoox has expanded its robotaxi geofence to five miles from Zoox’s headquarters to the south end of the strip, with multiple routes available in between, at speeds up to 45 mph.
Zoox also bolstered its robotaxi perception system for inclement weather and adjustments between day and night on the road. This expanded operational hours, including nighttime and continued service under light rain and damp road conditions.
At that time, Zoox said it was closer than ever to commercial operations and paid customer rides. It’s still not there yet in Las Vegas, but Zoox has announced an interesting new partnership, which should help get more passengers on the strip into its robotaxis while gathering additional feedback
Select riders can hail a free Zoox robotaxi in Las Vegas
Resorts World Las Vegas announced Zoox as its first-ever official robotaxi partner. This partnership entails a dedicated and branded pickup and drop-off location for autonomous ride-hailing service at the resort and an “experiential activation” within the resort.
After becoming the first company to operate a purpose-built robotaxi on public roads in Las Vegas, Zoox is now the first of such rideshare providers to sign an official partnership with a Vegas resort. Zoox hopes its unique four passenger robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals will add to the overall experience of Resorts World guests wanting to explore other parts of the strip. Per Zoox’s chief product officer Michael White:
Zoox and Resorts World share a joint focus on creating superior customer experiences. When visitors ride with Zoox, they’ll find the service offers an extension of the signature hospitality they’ve come to expect from Resorts World’s collection of premium brands, including Hilton, Conrad, and Crockfords. This partnership will allow us to enhance the overall guest journey, adding to their Las Vegas experience with personalized mobility.
To that note, Resorts World Las Vegas president and CFO Carlos Castro shared a similar sentiment about Zoox’s technology and how it can add to the world of premium hospitality, much of which Vegas has become renowned for:
At Resorts World, we seek partners that align with our vision of what the future of guest experiences can be. This collaboration with Zoox reflects our commitment to integrating technology solutions that elevate our service offerings and enhance how guests experience our property. By welcoming Zoox robotaxis into our transportation ecosystem, we’re creating new possibilities for our guests, while reinforcing Las Vegas’s position as a global innovation hub.
There is a catch.
Since Zoox has not yet been commercially launched for paid public rides in Las Vegas, interested riders must sign up for the company’s Explorer program. This program invites select riders to experience the Zoox robotaxi for free and provide feedback.
The company plans to open its robotaxi service to the general public in Las Vegas later this year.
I’m going to try to get on the Zoox Explorer list and test one of these rides out in Las Vegas… you know… for research purposes.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![Texas just shot its wind + solar boom in the foot on purpose [Update]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/12/czNmcy1wcml2YXRlL3Jhd3BpeGVsX2ltYWdlcy93ZWJzaXRlX2NvbnRlbnQvZmwzNjM4Njg2NjM3MC1pbWFnZS5qcGc.jpg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Texas is No. 2 in the US for wind and solar capacity, but the Texas Senate passed a bill that aims to kneecap clean energy with an industry-killing review process. Here’s what happened in the House.
May 28, 2025: The Senate passed SB 819, which would have created prohibitive new restrictions on wind and solar energy development that didn’t apply to any other form of energy. But it failed to meet deadlines that would have allowed it to progress in the House, so it’s now dead in the water. (Good riddance.)
SB 388 and SB 715, also anti-renewable, also died in the House of Representatives for the same reason. SB 388 would have required 50% of new energy generation to be “dispatchable,” but the bill unfairly excluded battery storage as a form of dispatchable energy. SB 715 wanted to require existing renewable energy installations to install backup energy.
Adrian Shelley, Texas director of Public Citizen, said, “The failure of these three bills is a victory for ratepayers. It is also a tacit recognition by a legislature that is too friendly to fossil fuels that renewable energy sources are an indispensable part of powering the state.”
April 15, 2025: The Texas Senate today passed SB 819, which creates new restrictions on the development of wind and solar energy under the guise of “protecting” wildlife. The restrictions don’t apply to any other forms of energy.
Texas uses an extraordinary amount of power, and renewables play a big part in supplying that power. The Texas Tribune reported in March that “ERCOT [the Texas grid] predicts that Texas’ energy demand will nearly double by 2030, with power supply projected to fall short of peak demand in a worst-case scenario beginning in summer 2026.” That’s because of extreme weather, population growth, and crypto-mining facilities.
As of February, Texas increased its energy supply by 35% over the last four years, and 92% of that supply came from solar, wind, and battery storage.
Solar is the largest source of energy generating capacity that has been added to the Texas grid. That’s because it’s cost-effective and it can be deployed quickly. So if new solar projects are kneecapped, power demand will outstrip supply in the Lone Star State.
Daniel Giese, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)’s Texas director of state affairs, stated after the Senate’s vote, “With energy demand rising fast, Texas needs every megawatt it can generate to keep the lights on and our economy strong. We cannot afford to turn away from the pro-energy and pro-business policies that made the Lone Star State the energy capital, but that’s exactly what SB 819 does. We urge the Texas House to reject this bill.”
Less clean energy would also jack up electricity bills for Texans, and rural areas would lose billions in landowner revenue and tax payments. Every time a wind farm or solar farm is installed on rural land, it brings a lot of money to the community that surrounds it. A January report estimated that existing and planned solar, wind, and battery storage projects will contribute $20 billion in local tax revenue and $29.5 billion in landowner payments.
What’s especially baffling about this bill is that it flies in the face of a core Texas value – keeping the government out of private property decisions – yet it does precisely the opposite.
Environment Texas executive director Luke Metzger issued the following response: ‘By making it much more difficult to build wind and solar energy in Texas, this bill threatens to increase pollution, increase blackouts and increase our electric bills.
“Under the guise of helping land and wildlife, SB 819 would create a discriminatory and capricious permitting standard that could grind renewable energy development to a halt.
“We urge the House of Representatives to reject this bill and instead support policies that promote a cleaner, more sustainable energy future for all Texans.”
It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I find this bill ludicrously masochistic. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and please keep it civil.
Read more: A vast 600 MW Texas solar farm just hit a major milestone [update]
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to 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. They have 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 you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Chevy is making it more affordable to drive off in one of its new EVs. With new incentives, you can now snag a 2025 Chevy Silverado EV for much less than a Tesla Cybertruck. The Equinox and Blazer EVs are also on sale this month.
Chevy EVs are getting more affordable
With the electric Silverado, Equinox, and Blazer rolling out, Chevy is now the fastest-growing EV brand in the US.
In the first quarter, GM sold 10,329 Chevy Equinox, 6,187 Blazer, and 2,383 Silverado EVs in the US. Arguably, the biggest reason behind the brand’s success is affordability.
Starting at just $34,995, GM calls the 2025 Chevy Equinox EV “America’s most affordable 315+ range EV. The base LT FWD model has an EPA-estimated range of 319 miles, more than enough for your typical daily commute.
Chevy launched new deals ahead of Memorial Day, making its EVs even more affordable. After cutting interest rates to 0% APR, Chevy’s electric pickup is significantly cheaper to finance than the Tesla Cybertruck.
The 2025 Chevy Silverado EV is now listed at 0% APR for 60 months, plus you can still take advantage of the potential $7,500 federal EV tax credit.
According to CarsDirect, the rate cut on a 5-year loan could translate to almost $5,300 in savings. The Cybertruck has a 5-year interest rate of 5.49%.
Chevy is offering 0% APR on all electric vehicles, including the 2025 Equinox and Blazer EVs. Both are also eligible for the $7,500 EV tax credit.
The 2025 Equinox EV FWD LT remains one of the best deals right now, with monthly leases starting at just $289. The 2LT model may be an even better deal at just $299 per month.
Chevy is offering leases as low as $399 per month on the 2024 Blazer EV and $849 per month for the 2024 Silverado EV Crew 4WD RST.
Thinking about trying out Chevy’s new EV lineup for yourself? We’ll help you get started. Check out our links below to find Silverado, Equinox, and Blazer EVs at a dealer near you.
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
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway