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

2 years 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

Why 9 Million Americans Have Left

Published

1 week ago

October 8, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

The Growing American Exodus

Nearly 9 million Americans now live outside the United States—a number that rivals the population of several states and signals a profound shift in how people view the American dream. This mass migration isn’t confined to retirees or the wealthy. Thanks to remote work, digital nomad visas, and mounting pressures at home, young professionals, families, and business owners are increasingly joining the ranks of expats.

Rising Costs and Shrinking Wallets

Living in the US has become increasingly expensive. Weekly grocery bills topping $300 are not uncommon, and everyday items like coffee and beef have surged in price over the last year. Rent, utilities, and other essentials also continue to climb, leaving many Americans to cut meals or put off purchases just to make ends meet. In contrast, life in countries like Mexico or Costa Rica often costs just 50–60% of what it does in the US—without sacrificing comfort or quality.

Health Care Concerns Drive Migration

America’s health care system is a major trigger for relocation. Despite the fact that the US spends more per person on health care than any other country, millions struggle to access affordable treatment. Over half of Americans admit to delaying medical care due to cost, with households earning below $40,000 seeing this rate jump to 63%. Many expats point to countries such as Spain or Thailand, where health care is both affordable and accessible, as a major draw.

Seeking Safety Abroad

Public safety issues—especially violent crime and gun-related incidents—have made many Americans feel unsafe, even in their own communities. The 2024 Global Peace Index documents a decline in North America’s safety ratings, while families in major cities often prioritize teaching their children to avoid gun violence over simple street safety. In many overseas destinations, newly arrived American families report a significant improvement in their sense of security and peace of mind.

Tax Burdens and Bureaucracy

US tax laws extend abroad, requiring expats to file annual returns and comply with complicated rules through acts such as FATCA. For some, the burden of global tax compliance is so great that thousands relinquish their US citizenship each year simply to escape the paperwork and scrutiny.

The Digital Nomad Revolution

Remote work has unlocked new pathways for Americans. Over a quarter of all paid workdays in the US are now fully remote, and more than 40 countries offer digital nomad visas for foreign professionals. Many Americans are leveraging this opportunity to maintain their US incomes while cutting costs and upgrading their quality of life abroad.

Conclusion: Redefining the Dream

The mass departure of nearly 9 million Americans reveals deep cracks in what was once considered the land of opportunity. Escalating costs, inaccessible healthcare, safety concerns, and relentless bureaucracy have spurred a global search for better options. For millions, the modern American dream is no longer tied to a white-picket fence, but found in newfound freedom beyond America’s borders.

Business

Will Theaters Crush Streaming in Hollywood’s Next Act?

Published

1 week ago

October 8, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Hollywood is bracing for a pivotal comeback, and for movie lovers, it’s the kind of shake-up that could redefine the very culture of cinema. With the freshly merged Paramount-Skydance shaking up its strategy, CEO David Ellison’s announcement doesn’t just signal a change—it reignites the passion for moviegoing that built the magic of Hollywood in the first place.

Theatrical Experience Roars Back

Fans and insiders alike have felt the itch for more event movies. For years, streaming promised endless options, but fragmented attention left many longing for communal spectacle. Now, with Paramount-Skydance tripling its film output for the big screen, it’s clear: studio leaders believe there’s no substitute for the lights, the hush before the opening credits, and the collective thrill of reacting to Hollywood’s latest blockbusters. Ellison’s pivot away from streaming exclusives taps deep into what unites cinephiles—the lived experience of cinema as art and event, not just content.

Industry Pulse: From Crisis to Renaissance

On the financial front, the numbers are as electrifying as any plot twist. After years of doubt, the box office is roaring. AMC, the world’s largest theater chain, reports a staggering 26% spike in moviegoer attendance and 36% revenue growth in Q2 2025. That kind of momentum hasn’t been seen since the heyday of summer tentpoles—and it’s not just about more tickets sold. AMC’s strategy—premium screens, with IMAX and Dolby Cinema, curated concessions, and branded collectibles—has turned every new release into an event, driving per-customer profits up nearly 50% compared to pre-pandemic norms.

Blockbusters Lead the Culture

Forget the gloom of endless streaming drops; when films like Top Gun: Maverick, Mission: Impossible, Minecraft, and surprise hits like Weapons and Freakier Friday draw crowds, the industry—and movie fans—sit up and take notice. Movie-themed collectibles and concession innovations, from Barbie’s iconic pink car popcorn holders to anniversary tie-ins, have made each screening a moment worth remembering, blending nostalgia and discovery. The focus: high-impact, shared audience experiences that streaming can’t replicate.

Streaming’s Limits and Studio Strategy

Yes, streaming is still surging, but the tide may be turning. The biggest franchises, and the biggest cultural events, happen when audiences come together for a theatrical release. Paramount-Skydance’s shift signals to rivals that premium storytelling and box office spectacle are again at the center of Hollywood value creation. The result is not just higher profits for exhibitors like AMC, but a rebirth of movie-going as the ultimate destination for fans hungry for connection and cinematic adventure.

Future Forecast: Culture, Community, and Blockbuster Dreams

As PwC and others warn that box office totals may take years to fully catch up, movie lovers and industry leaders alike are betting that exclusive theatrical runs, enhanced viewing experiences, and fan-driven engagement are the ingredients for long-term recovery—and a new golden age. The Paramount-Skydance play is more than a business move; it’s a rallying cry for the art of the theatrical event. Expect more big bets, more surprises, and—finally—a long-overdue renaissance for the silver screen.

For those who believe in the power of cinema, it’s a thrilling second act—and the best seat in the house might be front and center once again.

Business

Why Are Influencers Getting $7K to Post About Israel?

Published

2 weeks ago

October 2, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Influencers are being paid as much as $7,000 per post by the Israeli government as part of an expansive and sophisticated digital propaganda campaign. This effort is designed to influence global public opinion—especially among younger social media users—about Israel’s actions in Gaza and to counter critical narratives about the ongoing humanitarian situation.

How Much Is Being Spent?

Recent reports confirm that Israel has dedicated more than $40 million this year to social media and digital influence campaigns, targeting popular platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. In addition to direct influencer payments, Israel is investing tens of millions more in paid ads, search engine placements, and contracts with major tech companies like Google and Meta to push pro-Israel content and challenge critical coverage of issues like the famine in Gaza.

What’s the Strategy?

Influencer Contracts: Influencers are recruited—often with all-expenses-paid trips to Israel, highly managed experiences, and direct payments—to post content that improves Israel’s image.
Ad Campaigns: State-backed ad buys show lively Gaza markets and restaurants to counter global reports of famine and humanitarian crisis.
Narrative Management: These posts and ads often avoid overt propaganda. Instead, they use personal stories, emotional appeals, and “behind the scenes” glimpses intended to humanize Israel’s side of the conflict and create doubt about reports by the UN and humanitarian agencies.
Amplification: Paid content is strategically promoted so it dominates news feeds and is picked up by news aggregators, Wikipedia editors, and even AI systems that rely on “trusted” digital sources.

Why Is This Happening Now?

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has generated increasing international criticism, especially after the UN classified parts of Gaza as experiencing famine. In this environment, digital public relations has become a primary front in Israel’s efforts to defend its policies and limit diplomatic fallout. By investing in social media influencers, Israel is adapting old-school propaganda strategies (“Hasbara”) to the era of algorithms and youth-driven content.

Why Does It Matter?

This campaign represents a major blurring of the lines between paid promotion, journalism, and activism. When governments pay high-profile influencers to shape social media narratives, it becomes harder for audiences—especially young people—to distinguish between authentic perspectives and sponsored messaging.

As user trust in mainstream news decreases and social media’s power grows, understanding how digital influence operations work is critical for anyone who wants to stay informed and think critically about global events.

In short: Influencers are getting $7,000 per post because Israel is prioritizing social media as a battleground for public opinion, investing millions in shaping what global audiences see, hear, and believe about Gaza and the conflict.