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.

Buongiorno! Scooter here, back with another first-drive review with Maserati. This time, I flew north of Milan, Italy, to Lake Maggiore, where I took in tons of beautiful vistas while testing out Maserati’s first all-electric convertible, the GranCabrio Folgore. This is a beautifully done new model, but I worry about its starting price.

Background on Maserati’s first all-electric convertible

My most recent Maserati drive event was almost two years in the making, as we first reported on the Trident brand’s all-electric GranCabrio convertible in October 2022. At the time, we only saw a camouflaged prototype. Still, Maserati relayed that the initial stages of GranCabrio Folgore development and testing had begun through the streets of Modena in Northern Italy.

Since then, Maserati has launched two initial Folgore BEV models—the GranTurismo coupe and the Grecale Folgore SUV, which I test-drove in Southern Italy this past March. In April, I was back in Italy at Maserati’s public launch of the GranCabrio Folgore convertible in Puglia.

It was then that we learned what specs this tri-motor sports car will deliver, including its 2.8-second 0-100km/h (0-62 mph) acceleration time. While we still await the GranCabrio Folgore’s official launch in the North American market, I recently got to visit Maserati’s native lands and test it out for myself. I’ve shared my thoughts below.

GranCabrio Folgore performance specs and features

What’s refreshing about Maserati and its Folgore BEVs is that they come as they are—one variant with all the available features, all of which are top-of-the-line in design and function. This sort of business model makes my job easier because when I talk about specs, features, and pricing (brace yourself for that one in a bit), I only have to talk about a single option.

With that said, here are some pertinent specs in the Rose Gold Maserati GranCabrio Folgore convertible I tested out:

• Powertrain: 3x 300kW radial motors (2 rear, 1 front)
• Max Power: 560 kW (751 hp) / 610 kW (818 hp) w/ MaxBoost
• Max Torque: 1,350 Nm (996 lb-ft)
• Top Speed: 180.2 mph
• 0-60 mph Acceleration: <2.8 seconds
• Battery Capacity: 92.5 kWh (nominal) / 83 kWh (usable)
• Charging:
  • DCFC – 800V: 270 kW (up to 48 miles in 5 mins)
  • DCFC – 400V: 50 kW (12 miles in 5 mins)
  • DC Charge Time: 20 to 80% in 18 mins (@800V – 270 kW)
  • AC Charge Time: 48 miles per 1 hour (@15 kW)
• Range: Up to 233 miles (EPA estimated)
• Homologated Weight: 5,249 lbs.
• Weight Distribution: 50/50
• Turning Radius: 40.68 ft.

The specs of the Maserati convertible are not bad compared to its competitors in the luxury segment, but the range certainly leaves something to be desired. That said, the GranCabrio Folgore was not necessarily designed for long road trips. We had plenty of range left after our day our driving (and driving FAST).

From my experience, it is perfect for cruising along the coast with the top down and opening it up on straightaways. A downside to Maserati’s unique 800V platform is the limited space for more batteries. On the flip side, however, the Italian automaker was able to deliver a 50/50 weight distribution, which is better than its combustion counterpart, even with an extra 933 pounds of weight from the batteries.

Driving Maserati’s tri-motor BEV convertible in Italy

As the convertible version of Maserati’s first BEV on its 800V platform, the GranCabrio offers a bit more freedom (and headroom) than the GranTurismo Folgore. When I drove the Grecale Folgore SUV, I found its exterior to be a tad flat and boring.

That is not the case with the GranCabrio Folgore. It carries a sleek but muscular design and drives bigger than it looks due to its weight. Notice its unique clam-shell hood that extends as one entire stamped piece across the front of the vehicle and over the wheel wells. How often do you see so few lines up front? Stunning.

Inside and out, tiny details have been executed to the utmost quality standards, and this is the most aesthetically pleasing Maserati I have personally seen and driven. The interior is comforting and spacious up front, but the rear seats are obviously quite tight, given the sporty EV’s overall length (4,966 mm).

I found the center display easy to navigate and operate, with very little need to tap through multiple menus. Most of your most used functions are quickly accessible from the steering wheel or display and are intuitively placed.

I don’t necessarily mind physical buttons for drive functions like Park and Drive, but I was not a fan of Maserati’s decision to place them in the center of the dash between the displays. My hand’s instinct was to go to the wheel or in between the front seats to shift modes.

This convertible’s all-electric drive modes, however, were very easy to scroll through using a knob on the steering wheel. I admittedly spent most of my time in “Sport” and “Corsa” modes to feel the full performance, but I did test out each mode of the Maserati along my journey and enjoyed the feel of each and every one… especially the stiffness and torque vectoring of Corsa.

The acceleration was superb. This baby can go. We often times outpaced the combustion Trofeo versions on the road thanks the the Folgore’s triple motors and massive torque. Overtaking nearly any other car on the highway or back roads should be no problem for future owners.

Despite being a convertible, I found the ride of the Maserati GranCabrio surprisingly quiet. It’s obviously quietest with the top and windows up, but even top-down and windows up was very nice, and I really can’t complain about driving top and windows town either.

Air-conditioned seats were there for me when I was in the sun, and a heated “air scarf” feature is available near your neck in the front seats if you’re getting chilly from the fresh air.

One of the downsides I noticed, which comes with most convertibles, is the lack of trunk space in this Maserati, especially when the top is down and folded up. That said, there’s additional storage in the rear seats if you have anything larger than a couple of carry-on suitcases.

GranCabrio Folgore pricing, availability, our video review

Overall, this is my favorite Maserati BEV model I’ve driven to date. I think its overall design is the sharpest in the lineup, and it offers the performance to match its luxury. Even as a convertible, I found the GranCabrio Folgore to drive smoothly and as quiet as can be for having no roof.

Maserati’s battery placement in the 800V platform truly shines in this model, as its added (and evenly distributed) weight helps keep the tires on the road, even on hairpin turns. After driving this model, my two critiques are its range and its price.

The EPA’s estimated range of 233 miles is adequate for a vehicle of this size and type, but I would have liked to see more, given how much Maserati is asking for the all-electric convertible. This brings me to my next issue: the GranCabrio Folgore starts at an MSRP of $205,000 before an additional $1,995 in destination and handling fees.

At a premium like that, I can’t help but wonder who will buy this model. Maserati die-hards may still opt for the combustion version, although I’d argue the Folgore is only $13,000 more and delivers significantly better performance. Also, EV enthusiasts, even the more affluent ones, are probably going to opt for a Lucid Air GT or Tesla Model S Plaid for half the price of the GranCabrio.

Is it really worth the extra money for a convertible? The market will answer that question when the Maserati GranCabrio Folgore makes its way to North American showrooms this fall as a 2025 model.

Until then, be sure to check out my driving footage and impressions around Northern Italy below:

Hyundai’s top-selling electric SUV is on sale. Starting at just $17,820, the Nissan Versa is America’s cheapest car, but with massive incentives, the 2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5 is even more affordable to lease.

With over 34,000 models handed over last year, Hyundai’s IONIQ 5 was the sixth best-selling EV in the US.

The momentum has not slowed in 2024 as sales have climbed steadily. After setting new sales records in March and May, nearly 15,000 IONIQ 5 models have been sold through the first five months of the year.

With massive new incentives, you can now lease a 2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5 for less than America’s cheapest car.

The 2024 Nissan Versa is the cheapest car in the US, starting at $17,820. However, without any promotions, you can lease a long-range, fast-charging electric SUV for less (and it looks way cooler).

Nissan’s Versa is listed at an estimated $381 per month to lease, according to online auto research firm CarsDirect. That’s for 36 months with $0 down and a $19,490 MSRP (2024 Versa S CVT).

Hyundai IONIQ 5 lease prices are the cheapest yet

At just $229 for 24 months, the 2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5 SEL RWD (with up to 303 miles range) is a much better deal. With $3,499 due at signing, the effective cost is $375 per month, $6 cheaper than the Versa.

Considering the IONIQ 5’s $48,775 MSRP, the lease deal is hard to pass up. I mean, it’s even less per month than the cheapest car in the US.

Hyundai is able to offer such a low monthly payment by factoring in $10,000 in lease cash. The 2024 IONIQ 5 SEL RWD is not only one of the most affordable EVs in the US but also one of the most efficient.

In an exclusive interview with Electrek last month, Hyundai America CEO Randy Parker told us that the automaker is “humble and hungry” to distance itself from the competition. It’s doing so by giving customers confidence with long-range, fast-charging EVs at an affordable price.

Hyundai EV drivers have more to look forward to, as they will gain access to over 12,000 Tesla Superchargers by the end of the year.

If you want to take advantage of Hyundai’s huge lease discount, we can help you get started. You can use our link to view deals on the 2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5 at a dealer near you.