Business

Supreme Court set for pivotal cases that could claw back federal administrative power on January 14, 2024 at 10:00 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

10 months ago

January 14, 2024

The Supreme Court will hear a dispute this week that could lead to a decision dramatically clawing back the power of federal agencies, putting a number of consumer and environmental protections in jeopardy.

At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.

In practical terms, this means the court is considering whether to weaken the ability of a presidential administration to put forward regulations meant to counter pollution or climate change or to protect consumers without clearer authorization from Congress.

Such a feat would advance a long-sought goal of anti-regulatory interests, whose hopes are bolstered by some conservative justices’ recent skepticisms of Chevron. It is one of multiple, major cases at the high court this term implicating the administrative state.

“This is a campaign to weaken government’s ability to protect you from these kinds of modern dangers whether they’re to your health through unsafe air or water or … through unsafe drugs or food or whether it’s your financial security,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) climate and clean energy program.

“Those protections require a government with some capacity to effectively respond, and this case is about destroying that capability,” Doniger added.

The Chevron deference originated from a case argued by Doniger himself during the Reagan administration.

A bedrock of administrative law, the nearly 40-year-old precedent has given federal agencies wide latitude to enact regulations in areas where a law set by Congress was ambiguous.

Anne Gorsuch was then-President Reagan’s first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator when the challenge was made by Doniger and NRDC. Her son, Justice Neil Gorsuch, now may be a part of the majority that demolishes the Chevron standard.

In two separate cases set to be argued Wednesday, the justices will hear challenges to the same fishery rule that have become the most promising vehicles yet to overrule Chevron.

Gorsuch and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas have publicly cast doubts about the precedent’s future. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is also viewed as a skeptic, while the views of some of the newer justices, particularly Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are more unclear.

For months, the court was set to hear just one of the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a lawsuit brought by four family-owned Atlantic herring fisheries represented by conservative legal heavyweight Paul Clement.

But Jackson recused herself from that case, as she had sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals when it previously heard the dispute.

The court later added a second, near-identical case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, in which lawyers with the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) challenged the same rule on behalf of a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet. All nine justices are expected to sit for this case.

“The court has allowed them to misuse [Chevron] in ways that makes everyone perform badly in our tripartite government,” said John Vecchione, NCLA’s senior litigation counsel who is the plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

“And the reason I say that is, it incentivizes Congress not to clearly state what they’re doing in a statute,” Vecchione added. “They put in the main points. And then they assume that whatever the administration does, if they like it, they can take credit; if they don’t like it, they can say, ‘ah, we could never know that was going to happen!’”

Defenders of the Chevron deference argue that it makes sense: When the law is unclear, federal agencies, teeming with experts, should get to make the decision.

“What the doctrine recognizes is that within the government there are hard-working people who have developed an expertise on whether food is safe, on how you limit pollution from power plants, on how you ensure that our airplanes and automobiles are safe,” said Andrew Mergen, faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic.

“The doctrine promotes a regime … where experts do the gap filling and the alternative proposed by the alternative to Chevron is to have judges fill that gap,” he said. “A judge who’s not trained as a pilot, I do not want flying my airplane.”

But opponents argue that it provides too much power to the executive branch and takes away from the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

“The Constitution says the judicial power is vested in … judges, and so it’s an important separation of powers principle that only judges are vested with that power,” said Thomas Berry, research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Berry said that the power to interpret the law should instead rest with judges alone.

“Congress could pass a statute that has one policy goal and then a president of a different party or of a different ideology later on could essentially reverse it,” he said. “That would be thwarting democracy. A judge’s task is to simply interpret the law faithfully.”

Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said that if Chevron is overturned, that could have a “chilling effect” on federal agencies.

“Agencies will be less willing to experiment with regulation and to seek to address emerging problems without specific direction from Congress,” he said. “It will most likely lessen the amount of regulation and the scope and extent of regulation.”

He added that at least in the short term, legal challenges to existing regulations will “probably” be more successful without deference.

The Biden administration may be the one defending the doctrine before the Supreme Court, but in theory, deference — or lack thereof — would apply equally to rules put forward by Democratic or Republican administrations.

“And boy did I enjoy it,” Eugene Scalia, former President Trump’s Labor secretary, said of Chevron in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Proponents of overruling the doctrine have noted that the Supreme Court in recent years has solidified carveouts to Chevron deference or ignored it by resolving cases on other grounds.

“The doctrine is on its last legs,” Vecchione said. “This is more to put it out of its misery than it is some sort of, ‘oh, we’ve got to take away this doctrine that’s very robust.’ I think that the court has allowed this to percolate in the various circuits, and the circuits have showed what the problem is.”

Clement, representing the other group of plaintiffs, wrote in court papers that the justices hadn’t invoked Chevron since 2016, referencing an appellate judge’s decision likening Chevron to “the-case-which-must-not-be-named,” a reference to Lord Voldemort in the “Harry Potter” series.

“Thus, the question is less whether this Court should overrule Chevron, and more whether it should let lower courts and citizens in on the news,” Clement wrote. “The reality is that Chevron has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough. The government’s pleas to retain this misguided and reliance-destroying doctrine fall far short of the mark.”

Energy & Environment, Business, Court Battles, Policy, Brett Kavanaugh, Chevron, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, NRDC, Supreme Court The Supreme Court will hear a dispute this week that could lead to a decision dramatically clawing back the power of federal agencies, putting a number of consumer and environmental protections in jeopardy. At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known…

Business

The Cities Bracing for Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory and his promise of “the largest deportation operation in American history,” several major U.S. cities are bracing for potentially seismic shifts in their economic and social landscapes. As the nation grapples with the implications of this proposed policy, urban centers that have long been havens for immigrant communities find themselves at the epicenter of a looming storm.

Los Angeles, often dubbed the “City of Angels,” stands to lose more than its celestial nickname suggests. As a primary gateway for immigrants, the city’s vibrant tapestry of cultures and its economic engine could face significant disruption. From the bustling streets of Koreatown to the sun-drenched orchards of the Central Valley, the absence of undocumented workers could leave gaping holes in the city’s workforce and cultural identity.

Across the country, New York City, with its iconic skyline and melting pot reputation, faces its own reckoning. The Big Apple’s 5.9 million immigrants, many of whom are undocumented, form the backbone of industries ranging from construction to healthcare. The potential exodus could transform neighborhoods like Jackson Heights and Flushing, altering the very essence of what makes New York a global city.In the Sunshine State, Miami’s tropical allure belies the turbulent times ahead. Home to 2.5 million immigrants, the city’s economy relies heavily on sectors like tourism and hospitality – industries where undocumented workers often fill crucial roles. The potential deportation of these workers could send shockwaves through Miami’s economic ecosystem, from South Beach’s glitzy hotels to the agricultural heartlands of South Florida.

Chicago, the “City of Big Shoulders,” may find those shoulders significantly weakened. With 1.7 million immigrants in its metropolitan area, the Windy City’s diverse neighborhoods and industries face an uncertain future. From the meatpacking plants to the tech startups, Chicago’s economic resilience could be tested like never before.

In the Lone Star State, Houston and Dallas stand as twin testaments to the complexities of immigration policy. These Texas titans, each home to large immigrant populations, could see their booming economies stumble. The construction sites that dot their ever-expanding skylines and the service industries that keep these cities humming could face unprecedented labor shortages.

Out West, the San Francisco Bay Area’s reputation as a bastion of innovation and progress could be challenged. The region’s tech industry, often reliant on immigrant talent, might find itself grappling with a new reality. From Silicon Valley’s coding campuses to the agricultural expanses of the Central Valley, California’s economic powerhouse could face a reckoning. Phoenix, rising from the Sonoran Desert, could see its growth trajectory altered. As Arizona’s urban center, it stands at the forefront of the immigration debate, potentially facing not just economic impacts but social and political upheaval as well.

These cities, along with others like San Diego and Las Vegas, are not just facing potential economic disruptions. They are staring down the barrel of profound social change. Family separations, community fragmentation, and the erosion of cultural enclaves built over generations are all possible consequences of mass deportations. Moreover, the fiscal implications are staggering. Undocumented immigrants contribute billions in taxes annually, often without receiving the full benefits of their contributions. Their sudden absence could leave gaping holes in city budgets, potentially affecting public services and infrastructure projects.

As these urban centers brace for impact, the debate rages on. Supporters of stricter immigration policies argue for the need to enforce laws and protect American jobs. Critics warn of economic devastation and the unraveling of America’s urban fabric. What’s clear is that America’s cities stand at a crossroads. The coming months and years will likely reshape urban landscapes in ways both visible and invisible. From the foods we eat to the services we rely on, from the neighborhoods we call home to the very character of our cities, the impacts of this proposed immigration crackdown could be far-reaching and long-lasting. As the nation watches and waits, these cities – vibrant, diverse, and economically vital – find themselves on the front lines of a policy that could redefine what it means to be an American city in the 21st century.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring filmmakers. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

How Trump’s Deportation Plans Could Reshape Major Cities

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory, his ambitious plans for mass deportations have thrust America’s urban centers into the spotlight. As the nation grapples with the potential implications of what Trump calls “the largest deportation operation in American history,” cities across the country are bracing for significant changes that could reshape their economic, social, and cultural landscapes.

The stakes are particularly high for metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, which host the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants. These cities, along with other major urban hubs such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco, stand at the forefront of a looming transformation that could reverberate throughout the nation.

Economic Tremors

Economists warn that the proposed deportations could send shockwaves through urban economies. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, cautions that businesses would face “significant challenges” if a substantial number of immigrants were removed. Industries such as construction, hospitality, and healthcare—pillars of urban economies—could face severe labor shortages.

Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, emphasizes the potential ripple effects: “The native-born workforce cannot meet current labor demands.” This labor gap could lead to increased wages, potentially rekindling inflation—a concern that looms large over city planners and policymakers alike.

Community Fabric Under Strain

Beyond economic considerations, the social fabric of cities hangs in the balance. Elena, a Nicaraguan immigrant in Houston, voices a fear echoed in immigrant communities across the nation: “I’m scared… This is my home.” The threat of family separations, particularly in mixed-status households, casts a long shadow over urban neighborhoods.

Immigrant advocacy groups like FIEL are mobilizing, advising clients to prepare for “anything that can happen.” This atmosphere of uncertainty could lead to decreased community engagement and cooperation with local authorities, potentially impacting public safety and community cohesion.

Cities at a Crossroads

As the debate intensifies, cities find themselves at a crossroads. Some, like New York and Los Angeles, have historically positioned themselves as “sanctuary cities,” often at odds with federal immigration enforcement. The impending clash between federal policy and local governance promises to be a defining feature of this new political landscape.

Meanwhile, the logistical challenges of implementing such a massive deportation operation remain daunting. Questions abound regarding detention facilities, transportation networks, and the sheer manpower required to carry out Trump’s vision.

Looking Ahead

As America’s urban centers brace for potential change, the full impact of Trump’s deportation plans remains to be seen. Legal challenges are all but certain, and the resilience of America’s cities will be put to the test.

What is clear is that the coming months and years will be pivotal for urban America. As Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser, puts it, the plan is to “immediately reinstate” immigration policies from Trump’s first term. For America’s cities, this could mean a period of unprecedented change, challenge, and, potentially, transformation.

As the nation watches and waits, the story of America’s cities in the face of this ambitious deportation plan is just beginning to unfold. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of urban life in America for years to come.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring screenwriters. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

Donald Trump Wins 2024 USA Election

Published

2 weeks ago

November 6, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

Based on the election results, Donald Trump has indeed won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. Here’s an analysis of the key statistics and implications:

Electoral College Victory

Donald Trump has secured the presidency by winning crucial battleground states and flipping some key states that were previously held by Democrats. The final Electoral College tally is still being determined, but Trump has surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Battleground State Performance

Trump’s victory was largely secured by winning several critical swing states:

Wisconsin: Trump’s win here was pivotal in securing his path to victory.
Pennsylvania: This state flipped back to Republican control.
Georgia: Another key state that Trump managed to win back.
Michigan: Trump successfully flipped this traditionally Democratic stronghold.

Popular Vote and Voter Priorities

While the final popular vote tally is still being calculated, exit polls provide insight into voter priorities:

Economy and democracy were top concerns for voters.
Abortion and immigration also played significant roles in voter decision-making.

Congressional Control

The election results extend beyond the presidency:

Republicans are set to take back the Senate majority, securing at least 51 seats.
Control of the House of Representatives remains undetermined.

Media Implications

The outcome of this election could be seen as a challenge to mainstream media narratives for several reasons:

Polling Discrepancies: Many pre-election polls suggested a tight race or even a slight Harris advantage in key states. Trump’s victory, particularly in battleground states, may indicate that polls underestimated his support.
Narrative Shifts: Throughout the campaign, much of the mainstream media focused on Trump’s legal challenges and controversies. His victory suggests that these issues may not have resonated with voters as much as economic and policy concerns.
Voter Priorities: The emphasis on issues like the economy and immigration in voter decision-making may indicate a disconnect between media focus and voter concerns.
Electoral Predictions: Many mainstream outlets were cautious about predicting a Trump victory, even as results began to favor him. This hesitancy could be seen as a reflection of broader media skepticism about Trump’s chances.
Underestimation of Trump’s Base: The results suggest that Trump’s core support remained strong and potentially grew, despite negative coverage in much of the mainstream media.

It’s important to note that while the election outcome may challenge some media narratives, it doesn’t necessarily invalidate all mainstream reporting. The complex factors influencing voter behavior and the challenges of accurate political forecasting remain subjects of ongoing analysis and debate.

As the dust settles on this historic election, both the media and political analysts will likely engage in extensive reflection on the factors that led to Trump’s victory and the implications for future political coverage and analysis.