Among incredibly stupid court opinions, overturning Chevron takes the cake

Published

10 months ago

June 28, 2024

admin

US Supreme Court building. Photo by Senate Democrats on Flickr.

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.

Environment

All the best EV and PHEV rebate deals we could find for April 2025 [update]

Published

1 hour ago

April 28, 2025

admin

All the best EV and PHEV rebate deals we could find for April 2025 [update]

Cynics will point at big rebates and claim they mean the vehicle isn’t selling, but that just exposes them for the industry noobs that they are. A rebate is a powerful financial tool that helps dealers overcome obstacles like negative equity, poor credit, and down payment requirements and get you to drive home in the car of your dreams today.

So if you’re dealing with any of the above, but still hope to slide behind the wheel of a new EV before new tariffs kick in, pay attention: these EVs could get you behind the wheel of a new electric ride sooner than you think!

UPDATE: Kia really, really wants you to buy a new EV this month!

As I was putting this list together, I realized there were plenty of ways for me to present this information. “Biggest EV incentive deals ..?” Not everyone qualifies for every rebate. “Most stackable EV rebates ..?” Too confusing. In the end, I went with national cash back offers and chose to present them in alphabetical order, by make. And, as for which deals are new this month? You’re just gonna have to read the article. Enjoy!

Advertisement – scroll for more content

BMW XM

It may look like an angry space beaver on the outside, but BMW advertises itself as the Ultimate Driving Machine, not the Ultimate Style Machine — and by all accounts, the big BMW PHEV is one, if not the best-handling big SUVs out there.

With up to 30 miles of all electric range and a powerful V8 engine, it’s not savaing any trees, but now through April 30th, all versions of the plug-in hybrid offer $12,500 in lease or APR cash. If you’re financing your XM PHEV, BMW Financial is also offering 3.99% financing for up to 60 months, with a 72-month option at 4.49% APR.

Chevy BrightDrop

We recently highlighted a Costco offer that stacks a $25,500 manufacturer rebate with $3,000 in “regular” Costco Member Savings, $2,750 in “LIMITED-TIME” Manufacturer to Member Incentives, plus an additional $250 for Costco Executive members.

That’s more than $30,000 off the MSRP of one of the best, most capable commercial vans on the market – ICE or electric. And that’s before you factor in the 0% interest financing (72 mo.) being advertised on Chevy dealer websites.

Chrysler Pacifica PHEV

When the plug-in hybrid Chrysler Pacifica minivan first went on sale all the way back in 2016, it seemed to imply that the old Chrysler Corporation was going to race ahead of the other “Big Three” legacy US carmakers.

That didn’t happen, but the Pacifica is still the king of cupholders, while the van’s stow n’ go seating, and all the other practical, clever details that add up to remind you Chrysler invented these things. Through April 30th, you can get a $7,500 cash allowance plus $7,500 in Federal income tax credits on Pacific Plug-in Hybrid Select, S, and Pinnacle trim level vans.

Dodge Charger EV

As the auto industry transitions to electric, Dodge is hoping that at least a few muscle car enthusiasts with extra cash, will find their way to a Dodge store and ask for the meanest, loudest, tire-shreddingest thing on the lot.

These days, that’s the new electric Charger – and you still owed money on the Hemi you just totaled, Dodge will help get the deal done on its latest retro ride with a $6,500 rebate on 2025 models or $3,000 plus 0% financing for up to 72 months on 2024s.

Dodge Hornet PHEV

Despite objectively being one of the slowest-selling new cars in North American, the Dodge Hornet eAWD PHEV offers specs that could make a compelling case for die-hard Dodge fans who are curious about EVs, but still worried about finding charging away from home.

If that’s you, the Hornet offers over 30 miles of all-electric range from its 12 kWH battery and a decently quick 0-60 mph — then sweetens the deal even more with $6,500 in lease cash to help bring the payment down.

Jeep Wrangler 4xe

Jeep China — Wrangler 4xe and its 49 miles of all-electric range; via Stellantis.

While not much of an EV with “just” a 17.3 kWh battery, the PHEV version Jeep’s iconic Wrangler is often the cheapest version of the SUV to lease – a fact that’s seen the 4xe variants become a popular choice. Now through April 30th, Stellantis is offering up to $8,000 in cash allowance (not counting dealer discounts and other local incentives) in hopes that this latest offer is one you can’t refuse.

Kia Niro EV

One of the most underrated little runabouts on the market, the Kia Niro EV is more fun to drive than you think it’ll be, with zippy acceleration, solid quality, and an approachable sort of anonymity that I think a lot of Tesla drivers would appreciate right now.

Now through April 30th, Kia is offering up to $8,500 cash back on remaining 2024 Niro EVs and $7,500 on 2025 models. If you don’t like paying interest, Kia has 0% financing for up to 72 months on ’24s and a sweet $129/mo. lease deal on ’25 models – so whatever your specific needs are, your Kia dealer probably has a Niro EV deal they can get to work for you.

Kia EV6 GT

CarsDirect is reporting 24-month leases on the positively awesome Kia EV6 GT featuring up to $19,000 in lease cash through May 1st. Other EV6 variants get decent cash back offers, too – be sure to ask your local dealer about the one you’re interested in.

Kia EV9

I’ve been seeing Kia’s excellent, hot-selling tree-row electric SUV all over the ‘burbs, lately — and it’s hardly a wonder why. In addition to being a great car, the Kia EV9 has some of the most aggressive customer incentives in the business, with $11,000 cash back for conventional financing customers and a whopping $16,000 lease cash on 24 month terms through May 1 (36 and 48 month lessors still get a pretty incredible $15,000 cash back).

Get used to seeing these around, in other words. If not in your own driveway, certainly in some of your neighbors’!

Nissan Ariya and LEAF

2024 Nissan LEAF and Ariya “Hero” shot; via Nissan.

The inspiration for this article was a hypothetical $9,140 Nissan LEAF deal that I hastily concocted while walking the floor of the 2025 Chicago Auto Show, but the fact remains that even with “just” the $8,500 cash back being advertised through April 30, the ~~$28,140~~ $19,640 Nissan LEAF is probably the most affordable new car you can buy in the US. If you can score some additional local incentives and dealer discounts, so much the better.

If you want something a bit more modern (and with Tesla Supercharger access), the bigger, more conventional Ariya crossover also packs some solid offers with up to $7,500 in Customer Cash.

Polestar 3

OK, this one’s cheating — the Swedish/Chinese love child of Volvo, Geely, and the championship-winning go-fast gurus at Cyan Racing, Polestar is announcing up to $20,000 in incentives to convince some (but, crucially, not all) customers to trade in their existing EVs on a new Polestar.

The catch? You have to trade in a Tesla to get the $20K. At the rate those cars are depreciating, though, that might be the best offer you’ll get out there!

Toyota bZ4X

Toyota-$10,000-discount-bZ4X — 2025 Toyota bZ4X EV; via Toyota.

It’s not breaking any sales records, but the Toyota bZ4X is a solid five-passenger crossover EV that should meet any suburbanite’s needs with enough of Toyota’s legendary quality baked in to make it a safe bet for a decade-plus of hassle-free driving. Plus, with $10,000 in TFS Lease Subvention cash and plenty of dealer discounts floating around, it might be the best deal in Toyota’s current lineup.

Volkswagen ID.4

Volkswagen-EVs-in-2023 — VW ID.4; via Volkswagen.

One of the most popular legacy EVs, the ID.4 offers Volkswagen build quality and (for 2024) a Chat-GPT enabled interface. To keep ID.4 sales rolling, VW dealers are getting aggressive with discounts, making this fast-charging, 291 mile EPA-rated range, 5-star safety rated EV a value proposition that’s tough to beat.

This month, buy a Volkswagen ID.4 with up to $10,500 in Customer Bonus Cash or lease one with $7,500 in Lease Bonus cash.

Volvo C40, XC60 T8 Recharge

Volvo is offering up to $8,500 ($7,500 in customer cash, $1,000 in loyalty cash) off the price of remaining new C40s — the brand’s sporty, high-riding crossover coupe that happened to be its first dedicated EV offering in the US. If the C40 doesn’t suit you, the same deals are available on the more conventionally styled XC40 Recharge, too.

Buyers looking for one of Volvo’s excellent (IMO) T8 PHEV models can score up to $4,000 in allowances before the real discounting begins — and if, like me, your tastes run more towards Swedish sedans than SUVs, you might want to score yourself a sweet deal on a new S90 while you still can.

Disclaimer: the vehicle models and rebate deals above were sourced from sites like CarsDirect, CarEdge, USNews, and (where mentioned) the OEM websites – and were current 21APR2025. Despite my best efforts to filter these, some deals may not be available in your market, or to every buyer (the standard “with approved credit” fine print should be considered implied). Check with your local dealer(s) for more information.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

New York lawmakers are trying to shut down Tesla stores

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

admin

New York lawmakers are trying to shut down Tesla stores

New York state lawmakers have launched an effort to shut down Tesla’s stores in the state by revoking its waiver to allow direct sales.

Several states in the US have laws prohibiting the direct sale of electric vehicles to the public without going through third-party dealerships.

These bans stem from outdated laws intended to protect car dealers from their own automakers supplying the vehicles.

The idea is that automakers cannot open a company-owned store next to a third-party car dealer after they have invested in selling and servicing their cars. It would be unfair competition.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Now, some car dealerships are using those old laws to prevent automakers that have never had deals with third-party franchise dealers, such as Tesla and Rivian, from selling their vehicles to the public, even though it constitutes fair competition.

Tesla has been fighting those laws in many states with some success.

In New York, the anti-direct sale law remains in effect. Still, Tesla managed to obtain an exemption to open a few stores and service centers, despite its bid to expand being curtailed by the local dealership association.

Now, state legislators in New York are pushing to remove Tesla’s exemption and grant it to other electric vehicle (EV) automakers.

Senator Patricia Fahy, who was once an ally to Tesla in its fight to be allowed to sell in New York, is now leading the effort to remove Tesla’s waiver (via New York Times):

Ms. Fahy, a Democrat whose district includes Albany, and other state lawmakers are pushing to revoke a legislative waiver that has let Tesla directly operate five New York dealerships rather than sell cars through dealer franchises, as other carmakers must do.

Fahy’s effort stems from her regret of having supported Tesla in the past:

“Maybe I’m making amends,” Ms. Fahy replied when asked about her previous support for Tesla. Mr. Musk, she said, is “part of an administration that is killing all the grant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure, killing wind energy, killing anything that might address climate change. Why should we give them a monopoly?”

Many, like Fahy, believe that CEO Elon Musk’s support for Trump and their efforts to curtail EV adoption amount to Musk pulling the ladder that helped Tesla dominate the EV space, just as other EV companies need it.

To be fair, the state senator is not completely changing her stance on direct sales because of Musk’s involvement with Tesla. Instead, she changed her opinion on giving Tesla a waiver:

Ms. Fahy now views Tesla’s waiver as an unfair advantage, and wants the company to forfeit its five licenses by 2026. Under her plan, the licenses could be redistributed to rival electric-vehicle manufacturers like Rivian, Lucid and the Volkswagen affiliate Scout Motors, which also employ a direct-to-consumer sales approach.

Tesla has long outgrown its waiver allowing five stores in New York, and lately, it has started using a loophole to open stores on native land in the state.

Electrek’s Take

I’ve made my thoughts clear about direct sales. They should be allowed for any automakers who don’t use franchise dealers. That includes Tesla.

I think Tesla should be allowed to sell its vehicles in New York, and people should be allowed to boycott them.

However, I agree that Tesla getting a specific waiver is unfair. Any new automaker, like Rivian, Lucid, etc., should also be able to open stores freely in the state.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

PayPal kicks off fintech earnings as investors fear impact of Trump tariffs on consumer spending

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

admin

PayPal kicks off fintech earnings as investors fear impact of Trump tariffs on consumer spending

FILE PHOTO: A smartphone with the PayPal logo is placed on a laptop in this illustration taken on July 14, 2021.

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

PayPal, Block and Affirm are all closely tied to the health of the consumer, which has investors on edge headed into their earnings reports.

Markets broadly have been jittery to start the year due largely to concerns about President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs and the prospect of higher import costs leading to rising unemployment and reduced consumer spending.

Specific to e-commerce, there’s the end of de minimis trade exemptions for Chinese imports, effective May 2. That change, aimed at discount shopping apps like Temu and Shein, threatens tens of billions of dollars in low-cost cross-border e-commerce volume.

“Tariff implications and macro have added another wrinkle to ’25,” Wells Fargo analysts wrote in a note on April 16. The bank said PayPal is particularly exposed to tariff-related volatility and macro uncertainty, given that 90% of its revenue comes from consumer-driven transactions.

PayPal is the first in the group to report earnings on Tuesday. Block, the parent of Square, follows on Thursday. Affirm is scheduled to report results next Thursday. Their stock prices have been hit harder this year than the broader market. PayPal is down 23%, Block has fallen 32% and Affirm has dropped 19%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 10%.

The stocks rebounded last week as Wall Street showed some level of optimism that the Trump administration will make progress on trade agreements and that tariffs won’t be as extreme as earlier proposals suggested.

E-commerce challenges

With mixed messages coming from the administration, companies are reckoning with uncertainty and have little ability to provide accurate forecasts for the current quarter and remainder of the year. The volatility reached such heights in early April that Klarna, which competes with Affirm in the buy now, pay later market, and ticket marketplace StubHub delayed their long-awaited initial public offerings shortly after filing their prospectuses with the SEC.

Barclays analysts noted in a report on April 17, that significantly higher tariffs will weigh heavily on e-commerce sales, particularly for goods previously entering the U.S. duty-free. The firm estimates that Temu and Shein represent more than 30% of affected flows, much of it tied to digital wallets, buy now, pay later providers, and card processing infrastructure.

PayPal derives the vast majority of sales from consumer transactions and 40% of revenue and gross payment volume comes from international markets, according to Wells Fargo analysts. The bank trimmed its price target on April 16, to $74 from $80, citing margin pressure as e-commerce trends soften and competition rises.

PayPal has been getting a boost from Venmo, but that segment is also threatened if consumer spending declines. Growth expectations for the quarter — specifically a 5.5% increase in branded checkout volume — may be too high, Wells Fargo said, based on available nonstore retail sales data.

Analysts surveyed by LSEG estimate that PayPal will post revenue growth of just under 2% from a year earlier to $7.85 billion, and earnings of $1.16 per share.

Jack Dorsey’s Block faces pressure in multiple areas. Cash App user growth was sluggish in March, up just 1.3% from the same time last year, and Afterpay — the company’s buy now, pay later offering — is tightening its underwriting to limit credit losses. Barclays flagged Block as one of the more exposed names to small business churn and low-income volatility, noting that Afterpay volumes remain tied to highly discretionary consumer spend.

Block is expected to report revenue growth of about 4% to $6.2 billion, and earnings of 87 cents per share, according to LSEG,

Affirm reported a 30% increase in monthly active users in March, but tighter credit conditions and a broader economic cooldown may crimp near-term loan volume growth. Its business counts on purchases of electronics, apparel, furniture and other consumer goods.

Affirm is projected to report revenue growth of 36% to $783 million, and a loss of 3 cents per share, according to consensus estimates from LSEG.

Barclays analysts wrote in a note on April 15, that in March and the early part of April, much of the retail market may have experienced a “pull forward” of discretionary spending as consumers rushed to make purchases ahead of the May tariff implementation, a dynamic that could distort some backward-looking results.

“This scenario would essentially kick the sentiment can down the road,” the Barclays analysts wrote.

Representatives from PayPal, Block and Affirm declined to comment.