This case before SCOTUS seems to be about important judiciary bias setting. In our terms of reference, should a judiciary favor protocolization or deprotocolization? Chevron law reversal
It feels like a default that should be stable for decades and change slowly.
Right now this is a happening in a politicized environment with extreme prejudice so it’s hard to judge where the bias should be. Regulatory power has been on the decline for decades in the US but coming down from a very high base in the 70s.
Also interesting to think about the pros/cons of having agencies like the EPA (Gorusch’s mother was Reagan’s head of the EPA during original Chevron case) be primarily about making regulations to govern actual actors. On the one hand this creates moral hazard. On the other hand if agent entities self-regulate you get fox-guarding-henhouse problems.
What’s the right principle here? Ideally one that’s robust to heavily politicized contestation as is happening now?