Chevron to be overturned?

[Greedo punched first]

It might be next term.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Great news!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

[Sestak]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

This doesn't actually affect the vote count here...  if there's a 5-4 split on the Court in favor of retention of Chevron this case would split 4-4, leaving the overturn side with at best a plurality opinion. (5-4 split that way on the overall merits would fall to 4-4 and the Supreme Court would affirm the Chevron-based ruling below without opinion).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What practical consequences would a changing of Chevron jurisprudence have?

[Skill and Chance]

What practical consequences would a changing of Chevron jurisprudence have?

Huge consequences.  A full overturn of Chevron would likely end up being far more practically significant than Dobbs in the long run.  With the current SCOTUS, it would essentially give Republicans a veto over any new federal regulations (or at least the ability to interpret them as narrowly as possible).  Any new regulation that doesn't explicitly follow from the text of a new federal law could be challenged.  In the long run, it would lead to a lot more regulatory decisions going back to the state level and make a federal climate change policy beyond handing out subsidies practically impossible.

[Donerail]

Disagree — I don't think formally ending Chevron, a doctrine that the Court already does not apply and has not for at least eight years, will matter much. The expansion of the tools available at Step One (including the new major questions canon) effectively allows judges to get to whatever result they want within the Chevron framework already. It retains some independent force in the circuits, but even there, it can't survive continued neglect at the Court for long.

That said, I'd be surprised if the Court uses this to end Chevron and doesn't end up focusing on the narrower question presented. Resolve the case on step one, no substantive change, a Gorsuch/Thomas concurrence saying end Chevron already, the usual lineup.

[politicallefty]

I agree with the post above. Chevron has either been gutted or ignored outright when the Court finds it convenient. I especially agree that the bigger issue when it comes to Chevron is the lower courts. Even then though, some of these lower courts just seem to do whatever they want, precedent be damned. The Fifth Circuit makes SCOTUS look moderate to centre-left by comparison.

On a separate note, I have to say I find it unseemly that the case SCOTUS decided to grant cert to on this issue was one in which KBJ will be forced to recuse herself.

[Torie]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

This doesn't actually affect the vote count here...  if there's a 5-4 split on the Court in favor of retention of Chevron this case would split 4-4, leaving the overturn side with at best a plurality opinion. (5-4 split that way on the overall merits would fall to 4-4 and the Supreme Court would affirm the Chevron-based ruling below without opinion).

  A 4-4 "decision" is no decision at all.

[politicallefty]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

This doesn't actually affect the vote count here...  if there's a 5-4 split on the Court in favor of retention of Chevron this case would split 4-4, leaving the overturn side with at best a plurality opinion. (5-4 split that way on the overall merits would fall to 4-4 and the Supreme Court would affirm the Chevron-based ruling below without opinion).

  A 4-4 "decision" is no decision at all.

I don't think it's easy to count to four with KBJ recused.

[Skill and Chance]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

This doesn't actually affect the vote count here...  if there's a 5-4 split on the Court in favor of retention of Chevron this case would split 4-4, leaving the overturn side with at best a plurality opinion. (5-4 split that way on the overall merits would fall to 4-4 and the Supreme Court would affirm the Chevron-based ruling below without opinion).

  A 4-4 "decision" is no decision at all.

I don't think it's easy to count to four with KBJ recused.

That part makes me think they really will go whole hog on this. 

Also, could choosing a case with a recusal obligation be a statement on the fact that Chevron itself had so many recusals it was 6-0 ?

[politicallefty]

The West Virgina v. EPA breakdown would seem to imply it'll be substantially modified but not abandoned entirely, with Gorsuch writing a more radical concurrence or concur/dissent. But we'll see, especially given that KBJ is apparently recusing...

This doesn't actually affect the vote count here...  if there's a 5-4 split on the Court in favor of retention of Chevron this case would split 4-4, leaving the overturn side with at best a plurality opinion. (5-4 split that way on the overall merits would fall to 4-4 and the Supreme Court would affirm the Chevron-based ruling below without opinion).

  A 4-4 "decision" is no decision at all.

I don't think it's easy to count to four with KBJ recused.

That part makes me think they really will go whole hog on this. 

Also, could choosing a case with a recusal obligation be a statement on the fact that Chevron itself had so many recusals it was 6-0 ?

How do you count three recusals? My understanding of KBJ's recusal is that she did so because she heard this particular case when she was on a lower court.

Remember that it takes a minimum of four votes to grant cert. We have no idea who they were or if there were any more.

[Donerail]

That part makes me think they really will go whole hog on this. 

Also, could choosing a case with a recusal obligation be a statement on the fact that Chevron itself had so many recusals it was 6-0 ?

How do you count three recusals? My understanding of KBJ's recusal is that she did so because she heard this particular case when she was on a lower court.

Remember that it takes a minimum of four votes to grant cert. We have no idea who they were or if there were any more.

He's referring to the fact that Marshall, Rehnquist & O'Connor recused themselves in Chevron in 1984.