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.
Honda’s patent filings offer a clear glimpse into the company’s plans for an ultra-affordable electric motorcycle, integrating a proven chassis with a simple electric powertrain. It’s a clear glimpse into how the world’s most prolific motorcycle maker plans to challenge the nascent electric motorcycle market.
The filings in Honda’s new patent show a bike built around the familiar platform of the Honda Shine 100, a best-selling commuter in India, reimagined in electric form for a cost-effective future of urban mobility.
According to Cycle World’s Ben Purvis, Honda’s patent sketches outline a design that repurposes the Shine’s sturdy frame and chassis mounting points to house an electric motor and compact battery setup. Positioned where the engine once sat, a mid-motor drives the rear wheel via a single-speed reduction gear and chain – mirroring the essentials of the original gasoline-powered commuter bike.
Instead of a traditional fuel tank, the design features two lithium-ion battery packs, angled forward on either side of the spine frame and fitting neatly into the existing geometry.
What makes the bike revealed in this patent even more interesting isn’t just its clever packaging, but rather the platform. By leveraging the proven Shine chassis, Honda can significantly cut development costs, manufacturing complexity, and market price. That’s a big statement given that surviving in price-sensitive markets like India demands simplicity and reliability. And by piggybacking off a proven platform, Honda can dramatically reduce the time to market from the time the boardroom bigwigs give the project the final green light.
The design still seems to feature styling that would be fairly consistent with the Shine 100, even down to a gas cap-like circular protrusion likely on top of a faux-tank. Some electric motorcycles in the past have used this location to hide a charging port, keeping similar form and function to outdated fuel tanks and fill ports, though it’s not clear if that is Honda’s intention.
It’s not clear what power level Honda could be targeting, but the Shine bike from which Honda’s creation draws its design inspiration could provide some clues. The Honda Shine 100 features a 99cc engine that provides around 7.3 horsepower (around 5.5 kW) and has a top speed of 85 km/h (53 mph), solidly planting it in the commuter segment of motorcycles.
The electric motorcycle in Honda’s design would be unlikely to target much higher performance as it would drastically increase the required battery capacity, and thus similar speeds of around 80-85 km/h (50-53 mph) would seem likely.
There also appears to be no active cooling, which would also limit the amount of power that Honda would be likely to draw continuously. The patent describes a channel formed by the two battery packs, leading to the speed controller and creating ducted cooling that pulls heat out of the batteries and electronics without drawing extra power.
This emerging design is just one piece of Honda’s broader electric two-wheeler strategy. Their entry-level EM1 e: and Activa e: scooters launched with mobile battery packs and budget-friendly pricing. Meanwhile, high-tech concepts continually push the envelope. But this Shine-based bike aims squarely at the heart of mainstream affordability – a move likely to resonate with millions of new electric riders in developing regions like India where traditionally-styled small-dsiplacement motorcycles reign supreme.
Honda hasn’t revealed a timeline or pricing yet, but Honda’s patents offer real hope to fans of the brand’s electric efforts. If scaled effectively, this could be the first truly mass-market electric motorcycle from a major OEM, with a sticker price likely far below the $5,000 mark usually seen as a floor for commuter electric motorcycles from major manufacturers. That would also dramatically undercut models from brands like Zero or Harley-Davidson’s LiveWire, even as those brands rush to bring their own lower-cost models to market.
Electrek’s Take
Honda’s patent reveals a clever, no-frills EV designed to democratize electric two-wheeling, especially in developing markets that are even more price-sensitive than Western electric motorcycle customers.
Using a trusted frame, simple electric drive, and passive cooling, I’d say it definitely prioritizes cost over complexity, which is exactly what urban commuters need. If Honda can bring this to market, it would not just add another electric bike to the mix… it could create a new baseline for affordability in affordable electric mobility. Now we’re just waiting for the rubber to hit the road!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla shareholders will vote on whether to invest into xAI, Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s private company, according to a post by Musk on twitter today.
Elon Musk is not just the CEO of Tesla, the electric car company that you may have heard about from time to time in Electrek’s coverage, but several other companies as well. And, famously, Musk companies often share resources – there has been much talk of incorporating SpaceX technology into Tesla vehicles, and putting xAI/twitter’s “MechaHitler”…. er, I mean, “Grok”…. feature into Tesla cars, among other collaborations that have happened over his various companies’ histories.
And today, Musk made it official that he will seek greater collaboration between three of his companies: Tesla, xAI, and twitter, in the form of an investment into xAI by Tesla.
The situation is a little more complicated than that, though.
Tesla is a public company, owned by shareholders. Musk is the largest shareholder, but only owns around 12% of the company himself.
This is a different situation than xAI, which is a private company, owned by Musk. While there are other investors, he can exercise much more direct control over the company, and doesn’t have to put big decisions up to a vote.
One of the recent decisions he made with xAI was to purchase twitter in March. You may say, “wait, I thought he bought twitter back in 2022?,” and you’d be correct. Musk purchased twitter for $44 billion in 2022, which was widely agreed to be far too high a price, and then rapidly saw the company’s valuation drop to under $10 billion.
Then, in March 2025, Musk had xAI purchase twitter in an all-stock deal, valuing twitter company at $45 billion – again, far too high of a valuation, but considering he purchased the company from himself, he could set the price at whatever he wanted.
The move was widely considered to be a bailout of twitter, and the numbers involved considered arbitrary, perhaps partially to help save face for Musk after he made one of the worst business deals of all time.
Now the two are the same entity, and it seems clear that he would like to bring Tesla into the fold, in some way or another.
Musk has already improperly used resources from Tesla, a public company, to boost xAI and twitter, his private companies. Last year, he gave up Tesla’s priority position for highly sought-after NVIDIA H100 GPUs, instead shipping those GPUs to xAI and twitter. Tesla could have used these GPUs for training its FSD/Robotaxi systems, which Musk has claimed is the most important thing to Tesla’s future, but instead graciously sent them to his other company that used them to, uh, train a bot to say Nazi stuff apparently.
xAI has also poached talent from Tesla, multiple times, showing how Musk is using Tesla as a farm team for his private company.
So it hasn’t been a secret that Musk would like to use public money to bail out his private companies, as he’s been setting the stage for for a while now.
Musk has previously “discussed” getting Tesla to invest in xAI in the past, but the idea was never made official until today, when Musk said that he will put the idea to a shareholder vote.
In response to one of his superfans asking for the the opportunity to waste money on an overvalued social media app (which would mark the third time it has been overpaid for in as many years), and the backend fueling “MechaHitler,” Musk said this:
Tesla traditionally holds its annual shareholder meeting around the middle of the year, so if it were a normal year, this shareholder vote might be imminent.
But it’s not a normal year, as just last week Tesla announced an exceptionally late shareholder meeting, pushing it back to November, the latest it has ever held the meeting.
This means that Musk will have around four months to campaign for this idea – something that he’ll perhaps have more time to do, now that he’s no longer cosplaying as a government official.
We don’t know what the structure of the deal might look like yet, but Musk has been clear in the past that he wants more shares in Tesla. After selling many of his shares in order to buy twitter, he later complained that he doesn’t feel comfortable having less than 25% of Tesla. Given that his recent xAI/twitter deal was an all-stock deal, Musk could attempt to fund any investment of Tesla into xAI via shares, giving himself more Tesla shares in exchange for the company gaining a portion of xAI. Though to get him to 25% voting shares in Tesla, that would require either an enormous valuation for xAI, a small valuation for Tesla, or purchasing a large percentage of xAI (or, perhaps, all three, given how much higher TSLA’s valuation is than xAI’s).
We may however have a hint as to how that vote will go, because the last time Musk campaigned for a clearly terrible idea, Tesla shareholders ate it up.
In mid-2024, Musk ended his yearslong absenteeism at Tesla in a flurry of activity, hoping to persuade enough shareholders to vote for his illegal $55B pay package.
That flurry involved firing 10% of the company (supposedly in order to save money – though Tesla’s earnings have dropped drastically since), including important leadership and successful teams, which caused chaos with Tesla’s projects. He also pushed back an all-important affordable car project (which we’ve still heard nothing about) and held Tesla’s AI projects hostage while shifting both resources and staff from Tesla to his private AI company, even as he claims that AI is the future of Tesla.
In the end, these bad decisions worked, and shareholders voted to give their bad CEO his $55B pay package, even though it was later ruled to still be illegal.
So it looks like we’ve got another campaign coming up, and if last time was any indication, expect some really bad decisions along the way. It worked last time, didn’t it?
Republicans recently killed a number of home energy efficiency credits, including the rooftop solar credit. That means you only have until the end of this year to upgrade your home before republicans raise the cost of doing so by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started TODAY, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.
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. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The off-highway equipment experts at Perkins and McElroy have teamed up to develop a plug-and-play battery electric power unit designed to help equipment OEMs and upfitters to seamlessly transition from diesel to battery electric power.
Designed to occupy the same space as the companies’ diesel-engined power units, Perkins dropped its new battery power unit into the similarly new McElroy TracStar 900i pipe fusion machine (specialized equipment used to join thermoplastic pipes like HDPE or polypropylene by heat-welding them end-to-end to form a continuous length pf pipe).
Perkins’ battery electric power unit replaces the company’s proprietary 134 hp, 3.6 liter 904 Series Tier V diesel engine, enabling units that are already deployed to be quickly upgraded to electric power – and helping trade allies and development partners to easily retrofit existing equipment in order to add zero-emission options to their operational fleet.
“We’re actively helping customers navigate the shift in power system requirements, with a range of advanced power systems including electric, diesel-electric and alternative fuel compatible engines,” says Jaz Gill, vice president, global sales, marketing at Perkins. “When it comes to the innovative fully integrated battery electric power unit, it can be ‘dropped in’ to a machine to replace a diesel engine. The system consists of a Perkins battery along with inverters, motors and on-board chargers – all packaged up into a compact drop-in system to support seamless transition from diesel to electric for our customers looking to make that move.”
McElroy believes that an electric, emissions-free power unit like this one will open new opportunities and applications for its customers.
“Their team has done a phenomenal job of integrating their battery electric system into our TracStar 900i,” explains McElroy President and CEO Chip McElroy. “We’re really excited to see what the market thinks about this concept.”
Development of the battery electric powered pipe fusion machine was completed in about nine months. Future Perkins-powered electric equipment running the 904 diesel (small excavators, telehandlers, pumps, and gensets) could be developed even more quickly. You can find out more in the company’s promo video, below.
Perkins electric power unit
SOURCE | IMAGES: McElroy, Perkins.
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