Gutting Chevron Deference Harms the Public
Gutting Chevron deference will harm the public, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said today in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court today, once again, sided with big corporations trying to weaken agencies’ ability to issue strong rules to protect the public, the coalition maintains.
The Court has overturned a 40-year-old legal precedent that respects Congress’ choice to delegate policymaking authority to subject-matter experts at federal agencies. These experts – not judges – should make decisions about how best to implement a statute, in light of real-world experience.
“The Supreme Court today overturned a decades-old legal precedent that will significantly undermine government experts trying to protect consumers, workers, the environment, and the public’s health and safety,” said Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. “The public expects our government to protect us from dangerous products, polluted air and water, unsafe workplaces, and fraudulent markets. This decision will harm all of us for as long as it stands.”
“This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen and co-chair of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. “But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment.”
“To best safeguard consumers, protections need to be based on research and data, not on the whims of judges who have no expertise on these products and services,” said Susan Weinstock, president and CEO of the Consumer Federation of America and co-chair of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. “We will all pay the price of today’s terrible decision with our dollars, our health, and our lives.”
Importantly, the decision does not remove or weaken the legal authority for federal agencies to protect the public with new and updated rules, and it is no excuse for regulatory inaction. Agencies must continue to do their jobs protecting consumers, workers, civil rights, our environment, and the public.
In response to the decision, Congress should enact Chevron deference into law by passing the Stop Corporate Capture Act (H.R. 1507), the coalition said. The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public. It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government’s ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000
Post-Debate Poll: 72% of Voters Think Biden Does Not Have 'Cognitive Health' to Be President
New CBS/YouGov survey comes as the informal we-can't-let-a-fascist-Donald-Trump-win coalition agrees that Biden—for the good of the country and the world—should now step aside.
What would be the reaction of voters?
In the approximately 60 hours since Thursday night's stunningly bad debate performance by President Joe Biden, the number of individuals and institutions calling for the incumbent to step aside so that another Democratic Party candidate can be chosen to prevent Donald Trump from ever again stepping into the White House has only grown.
From the elite media offices of The New Yorker and the New York Times to a cacophony of political observers from across the ideological spectrum that makes up the Democratic coalition, a unified message has been clear: the President of the United States has shown he is unfit to challenge Trump and the stakes are simply too high to risk defeat.
"This isn't a progressive or centrist or conservative thing," said Aaron Regunberg, a lawyer and progressive organizer, said in a social media post Sunday morning. "There's no ideological valence to it. We simply cannot afford to lose this election to Trump, which means President Biden must step down as nominee and pass the torch to a new generation of leaders."
"No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
And a new CBS/YouGov poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered voters believe Biden does not have the "mental and cognitive health to serve as president," compared to 49% who said the same about Trump. That 72% figure for Biden represents a 12-point jump among voters compared to when the same question was asked on June 9.
The New York Times Editorial Board—an otherwise staunch ally of the liberal establishment that has backed Biden—made a splash Saturday by arguing prominently on its pages, under the unmistakable headline "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race," that the president would be doing the nation a service by bowing out. According to the board:
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister for Greece and co-founder of Progressive International, said you know "the long knives are truly out" when the Times has slew of weekend opinion essays targeting the Democratic president.
Meanwhile, The New Yorker magazine's editor David Remnick, another oracle of the liberal media, carved a similar path as he described a political "tide roaring at Biden's feet" and a presidential figure who looks "increasingly unsteady" to the voting public.
"It is not just the political class or the commentariat who were unnerved by the debate," wrote Remnick in his Saturday column. "Most people with eyes to see were unnerved. At this point, for the Biden's to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly."
With the president and First Lady Jill Biden at Camp David for the remainder of the weekend—and reports swirling of a " frenzied" damage-control effort by his staff and internal family consultations underway to "discuss the future of his re-election campaign" while gathered at the retreat complex—progressive political observers said that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment—including elected leaders, donors, and top DNC officials—can only come to one conclusion after Thursday's debate.
"Quite apart from the existential threat of Trump becoming the next president and ending American democracy, there is pure self-interest," arguedThe American Prospect's Robert Kuttner on Friday. "The futures of every other Democrat up for re-election are on the line." He continued:
With Biden heading the ticket, Democrats will likely lose the House, Senate, state legislatures and governorships, and down-ballot races all the way to school board, as well as the presidency. Chuck Schumer cares more about losing his post as majority leader than he cares about the awkwardness of having to tell his president he needs to go. And to quote Shakespeare, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
Ironies abound. This early debate was the Biden camp's idea. It's evidence of the cluelessness of Biden's inner circle about the president's weakness as a candidate that they thought Biden would triumph. They gloated that they prevailed on the terms—no audience, no on-mic cross talk—and still their man got clobbered.
Biden should have won overwhelmingly—on the issues, on Trump’s lying, and on his own coherence compared to Trump’s. Biden’s policies have been superb and consistent. Trump’s policies, both as president and as future president, are a contradictory medley of disasters.
But from the moment he shuffled onto the set, Biden obviously wasn’t up to it.
In the assessment of other progressives—many of whom have argued for well over a year that Biden was a weak candidate and should be challenged for the nomination—Democratic elites have now caught up to what should have been self-evident.
In a Sunday op-ed at Common Dreams, Sam Rosenthal of the leftist advocacy group RootsAction, which mobilized a "Step Aside Joe" campaign last year in hopes of convincing the president to not seek re-election, argues that the "tide could turn" on Biden in the days ahead if "a few brave elected officials in prominent positions were to speak out" against the president.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket is critical to saving our very imperfect democracy," writes Rosenthal. "This is an opportunity for activists and voters to make their voices heard, but an effort needs to take hold quickly, and with urgency, if we want to avoid the coming catastrophe."
In a Sunday newsletter, political journalist Chris Cillizza published in full an email he received from a veteran Democratic political operative who agreed to have his note published so long as he was not named. The email, in part, read:
I just don't understand what in the hell is going on.
As a career Democratic operative who never lived in DC, I can't underscore how different things are outside the bubble. People I talk with who aren't political hacks and just happen to be Democrats or ‘never Trump’ types are mortified and scared after the debate.
My phone hasn't stopped.
These aren't people who are active on Twitter or dedicate their social media feeds to politics, they are just normal folk. They don't understand why the Democratic Party is doing this.
They are horrified and perplexed and absolutely recognize they are being gaslighted...
Albeit anecdotal, Cillizza said the email represents, "a telling sign that all is not well in the Democratic party. And that there are a LOT of worried people out there."
Despite serious questions about who should or would be chosen as the replacement Democrat (including the process by which that decision is made), the widespread anxiety about allowing Trump to march back into the White House due to the Democrats' failure to field a strong and reliable candidate could not be shaken by the Biden's campaign concerted efforts to circle the wagons over the weekend and their appeals for voters (not to mention large donors) to stay calm."We need to have as much discipline as emotion," one unnamed senior Democratic official toldNBC News on Saturday. "It's not politically smart for Biden to step down."
Meanwhile—offering a mirrored counterpoint and not to be overshadowed by the NYT's call for Biden to relinquish the Democratic nomination—the Philadelphia Inquirer on Saturday published an editorial of its own, titled "To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race," which acknowledged that even as Biden faltered seriously on Thursday night, those arguing the sitting president should be the one to bow out have it backward.
"Yes, Biden had a horrible night," reads the editorial. "He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best."
But progressive pushback to such sentiments ranged from unconvinced to outraged.
"I find the 'Joe had a bad debate but he's still much better than Trump' line so offensive," said Regunberg. "No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
"If Biden refuses to step aside it will not be an act of high principal or strong character," said journalist and Slate columnist Zachary Carter. "He did not just have a bad night. He is not fit for the job and staying in the race would be the worst kind of vanity and betrayal."
'We Are a Resurrection': Poor People's Campaign Rallies for Low-Wage Voters in DC
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," one speaker said.
Thousands of poor and low-wage workers and their supporters from religious, labor, and social justice organizations rallied in Washington, D.C. on Saturday and pledged to "break the silence about poverty" and mobilize 15 million poor and low-income voters ahead of the November 2024 election.
The Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March on Washington, D.C. and to the Polls was hosted by the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, which hopes to pressure politicians to embrace a 17-point agenda that prioritizes the well-being of the poor and working class over funding for war and militarism.
"We came here today to represent America's largest potential swing vote: poor and low-wage people who make this country work," Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, wrote on social media after the event.
Speaking at the rally, which took place at Third and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest and began at 10:00 am ET, Barber emphasized the potential power of the poor as a voting block. He said that poor people represent 30% of the electorate and 40% in swing states.
"Every state where the margin of victory was within 3%, poor and low-wage voters make up over 43% of the electorate," Barber said.
He added that in crucial battleground states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, the result of the 2020 election was determined by 178,000 votes, yet more than six million poor people in those states did not vote at all.
"Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
"The No. 1 reason they did not vote is they said nobody talked to them," Barber said. "Well, there comes a time when people don't talk to you, you've got to make them talk to you."
That is exactly what the Poor People's Campaign is trying to do. In addition to reaching out to 15 million low-income infrequent voters, Barber said the campaign planned to deliver a statement to the major news networks on Saturday.
"We don't care what kind of debate you have if you don't have a debate that asks candidates where they stand on living wages and labor and healthcare, that's the failure," Barber said.
Barber added that the movement would also deliver a statement to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions saying, "If you want these votes, then you have to talk to us, not about what you've done, but what you're going to do in the days to come, because our votes must rise."
Barber and other speakers argued for putting the concerns of the poor and low-income at the center of national politics.
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," Barber said. "This is not a moment, this is a movement that must rise until we lift this nation from the bottom so that everybody rises."
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, said: "Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
She argued that putting the poor at the center of the struggle for democracy "is what can save this nation."
"We say poverty no more. We demand justice for the poor," she concluded. "Because everybody has got a right to live."
On social media, Barber encouraged others to sign on to the movement's pledge.
"It's time to make our voices heard," Barber wrote. "We call on people of moral conscience to join us by pledging to be a part of this mobilization effort. Together, we can wake the sleeping giant of poor and low-wage voters. We are a resurrection, not an insurrection!"
The movement's 17-point agenda includes calls for abolishing poverty as the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.; ensuring economic justice policies such as a living wage, labor rights, affordable housing, and universal healthcare; enshrining women's and immigrants' rights; protecting the environment and climate; ending gun violence and domestic extremism; and negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza and limiting the war economy.
In addition, Barber and other speakers responded to political developments over the past week, including concerns about U.S. President Joe Biden's performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump Thursday night.
Barber criticized the media for focusing on issues like Biden's stutter or Trump's sexual indiscretions rather than the bread-and-butter issues that matter to voters.
"In my tradition, Moses stuttered, but he brought down Pharaoh," Barber said at the rally. "Jeremiah had depression, but he stood up for justice. Jesus was acquainted with sorrow. Harriet Tubman had epilepsy. Folks are getting caught up on how a candidate walks—well, let me tell you, I have trouble walking, but I know how to walk toward justice."
Barber continued: "We say to the media, this election is not about foolish things. It is about whether we will have democracy. And it is not about one candidate; it is about the people mobilizing and organizing, and you will not drive us to despair."
Participants also spoke out against the Supreme Court's decision on Friday in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnsonthat cities can enforce bans on sleeping outside in public even if they are not able to provide shelter space for unhoused individuals.
"A Supreme Court that says you can send somebody to jail for not having a home, you can send them to jail for sleeping, but then they turn around and say those with money can have unprecedented power in our election, that is too low down for a nation," Barber said.
Theoharis agreed.
"It is wrong for the highest court in the land to criminalize homelessness, to rule that you cannot breathe in public on a bench, in your car, or in a park if you do not have a home," Theoharis said.
Progressive Dems Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.
Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.
"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."
"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.
In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."
The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."
In addition, it would:
- Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;
- Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;
- Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;
- Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and
- Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.
"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."
Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."
"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.
"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."