To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
The assault by the six right-wing justices on the Chevron doctrine is an assault on everyday people, carried out on behalf of corporations and the Court’s wealthy benefactors.
Last month, the Supreme Court broke with four decades of precedent and overturned Chevron deference, a cornerstone of administrative law that has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times. The 6-3 ruling, handed down on party lines in the cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, eliminated a judicial doctrine that had long instructed federal courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous or unclear laws passed by Congress, rather than have judges act as regulatory policy-makers.
Chevron deference was established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council for two main reasons. First, because federal agencies are staffed with career civil servants and subject matter experts like scientists, researchers, and data analysts who understand the nitty-gritty details of regulatory policy-making far better than any given judge. Second was the importance of democratic accountability and the separation of powers, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing in the Chevron decision that “federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.”
In her blistering dissent for Loper Bright, Justice Elena Kagan excoriated the Court’s right-wing majority for “giv[ing] itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.” The Court itself had inadvertently showcased the danger of having judges act as regulatory experts a day earlier, when Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly confused the air pollutant nitrogen oxide with the anesthetic nitrous oxide (more commonly known as “laughing gas”).
But Chevron’s repeal is no laughing matter. Allowing unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges to invalidate countless regulatory protections based purely on their own political preferences will open the floodgates to a corporate legal assault on crucial regulatory protections—from clean air and water, to food and drug safety, to labor and civil rights.
Curiously, Chevron was once celebrated by conservatives (including the late Antonin Scalia), as it allowed the Reagan administration to continue its industry-friendly regulatory approach unimpeded by the more liberal federal courts at the time (the DC Circuit ruling overturned by SCOTUS in Chevron was written by then-circuit judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg). But over the past decade, as Democrats regained control of the executive branch and used Chevron deference to check corporate power, conservatives have changed their tune. Aided by the GOP’s packing of the courts with Federalist Society alumni, the conservative legal movement and Big Business now see the unelected judiciary as the best long-term venue for dismantling the administrative state.
Allowing unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges to invalidate countless regulatory protections based purely on their own political preferences will open the floodgates to a corporate legal assault on crucial regulatory protections—from clean air and water, to food and drug safety, to labor and civil rights.
Their most powerful ally in this effort has been Justice Clarence Thomas, a former supporter of Chevron doctrine whose about-face has been equally opportunistic. According to The Lever, Thomas—who wrote a landmark opinion upholding Chevron in 2005—began working to overturn the doctrine after he and his wife received lavish undisclosed gifts and financial support from wealthy conservative benefactors, including real estate mogul Harlan Crow and Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo. Records unearthed by ProPublica have also revealed that Thomas was invited to fundraising events held by fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, whose donor network has long sought the overturning of Chevron.
These wealthy benefactors played a hidden role in the successful overturning of Chevron this term by using the disputes about federal fishing fees in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases as stalking horses against the doctrine. Petitioners in both cases were represented pro bono by lawyers with close ties to the Koch network. In Loper Bright, herring fisherman Bill Bright was represented by three lawyers who also work for Americans for Prosperity, one of the Koch Network’s most prominent organizations. In Relentless, the petitioners were likewise represented free of charge by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a right-wing litigation group that has received over $5 million from Koch-affiliated organizations and $4 million from Leonard Leo’s dark money groups.
The Court’s power brokers have also used amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs to engage in judicial lobbying. In Loper Bright and Relentless, we found 19 examples of this practice. Right-wing think tanks Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Texas Public Policy Foundation—who all filed anti-Chevron doctrine amicus briefs in Loper Bright—have received millions in donations from Koch organizations. The Board of Trustees for the Manhattan Institute, another Koch-funded Loper Bright amicus filer, is chaired by Justice Samuel Alito’s wealthy fishing buddy Paul Singer and counts Harlan Crow’s wife Kathy among its members. Leonard Leo has similarly bankrolled several amicus filers, including the Mike Pence-led Advancing American Freedom, the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, and (conspicuously) the recently-launched fishing industry lobby group NEFSA.
Despite these flagrant conflicts of interest, neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Alito recused themselves from Loper Bright or Relentless. In fact, the only Justice to recuse from either Chevron case was Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had participated in oral arguments for Loper Bright while serving as a circuit judge.
The devastating impact of Chevron repeal has been compounded by other radical party-line power-grabs made by the Court this term.
The Loper Bright decision is already bearing fruit for its corporate supporters. Just hours after the decision, Eastern District of Texas Judge Sean D. Jordan cited it in his decision to partially block a Department of Labor rule that would have made over 4 million workers eligible for overtime pay. Loper Bright has also been cited in at least four other legal challenges against the DOL’s protections for tipped and gig workers, as well as a new lawsuit filed by three New Jersey hospitals against HHS rules governing Medicare reimbursement. Experts at the Center for American Progress have outlined the many other regulatory protections that could be at risk post-Chevron, including fair housing and anti-discrimination rules, relief for student borrowers, the EPA’s new vehicle and power plant emissions standards, and the CFPB’s crackdown on predatory junk fees.
The devastating impact of Chevron repeal has been compounded by other radical party-line power-grabs made by the Court this term. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the conservative majority made it much harder for the federal government to prosecute white collar criminals, while also threatening the structure of many administrative agencies. And in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Justices functionally eliminated the statute of limitations for challenging new federal regulations. In her dissent for the latter, Justice Jackson warned that “the tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
Of course for the right-wing, devastation is the goal. The Court’s dismantling of the administrative state follows Donald Trump’s own attempt to do so in the waning days of his presidency through the short-lived Schedule F scheme, which would have empowered the president to fire thousands of career civil servants at will and replace them with political loyalists. Though repealed by the Biden administration, restoring Schedule F remains a central plank of both Trump’s 2024 campaign and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Corporate actors and right-wing activists are attacking the administrative state because they know how important it is for protecting the public from unchecked corporate power.
If nothing else, the end of Chevron should end debate among court-watchers as to whether any of the Roberts Court’s six conservative members (including Loper Bright author John Roberts himself) are “moderate.” Loper Bright is one more example in a series of landmark rulings— including Citizens United v. FEC, Janus v. AFSCME, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, and the recent Trump v. United States—which reveal what John Roberts and his Court actually care about. They have no regard for long-held precedent or for the rule of law, only far-reaching power-grabs that benefit the Federalist Society and Big Business. Their flagrant disregard for judicial ethics and the separation of powers should compel Congress to rein in the Court’s unchecked power by codifying Chevron deference into law, enacting a binding and enforceable Supreme Court ethics code, impeaching Justices Thomas and Alito, and expanding the Supreme Court.
Corporate actors and right-wing activists are attacking the administrative state because they know how important it is for protecting the public from unchecked corporate power. So long as the Supreme Court retains its corrupt right-wing majority, the future looks bright for Big Business. For the rest of us, the Court’s relentless power-grabs will make everyday life much worse.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho may just be the most reactionary federal appellate judge in the country.
Donald Trump’s greatest presidential achievement was remaking the U.S. Supreme Court. By appointing three young and doctrinaire judicial “originalists” to the bench—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—Trump ensured that the dourt would be dominated by a six-three conservative supermajority for years to come.
The right’s capture of the high court is the result of a longstanding crusade that some commentators date to a confidential 1971 memo authored by the late Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., entitled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” Drafted on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce while Powell was a well-connected partner in a blue-chip law firm in Richmond, Virginia, the memo urged corporations to “recruit” lawyers of “the greatest skill” to represent their interests before the Supreme Court, which had moved steadily leftward under the stewardship of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The memo was breathtaking in its scope and ambition. In it, Powell argued that “Under our constitutional system... the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change.” It was imperative, in Powell’s view, for the Supreme Court to change course. As writer Steven Higgs noted in a 2012 article published by CounterPunch, the memo was “A Call to Arms for Class War: From the Top Down.”
“If you could breathe life into 4chan, the dark corner of the Internet where shitposters, edgelords, Groypers, and trolls of all kinds thrive, and then appoint this new lifeform to the federal bench, you would have created Judge James Ho.”
It was only a matter of time until the Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, and The Federalist Society, formed in 1982, heeded the call and began to compile lists of acceptable conservative candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Both groups were especially active in proposing candidate rosters for Trump, a process that culminated in him choosing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
But if you think that Trump is finished remaking the Supreme Court, think again. Supreme Court justices are human, and while they serve for an average of 26 long years, they are mortal, just like the rest of us.
Of all the court’s current members, Clarence Thomas is the oldest and the most likely to step down. Nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1991, Thomas will turn 76 in June. And he may not be in tip-top medical condition, having been hospitalized for a week with an undisclosed infection in 2022. Thomas isn’t the type to retire early, but if Trump is reelected and is able to nominate his successor, he may just decide the time is right to ride off down Interstate 80 with his wife Ginni in the luxury RV he purchased with a since-forgiven loan from one of his many uber-wealthy benefactors.
If Thomas decides to leave, a worthy successor is waiting in the wings—Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho, who may just be the most reactionary federal appellate judge in the country. In the words of Vox senior legal correspondent Ian Millhiser, “If you could breathe life into 4chan, the dark corner of the Internet where shitposters, edgelords, Groypers, and trolls of all kinds thrive, and then appoint this new lifeform to the federal bench, you would have created Judge James Ho.”
Just 51 years old, a youngster by Supreme Court standards, Ho was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the United States as a child. He grew up in San Marino, California, an upscale suburban community east of Los Angeles. He received his B.A. from Stanford and his law degree from the University of Chicago.
As an attorney, he logged short stints with the U.S. Department of Justice and served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee before clerking for Thomas at the Supreme Court from 2005 to 2006. In 2008, Texas Governor Greg Abbott nominated him to replace Ted Cruz as that state’s solicitor general. Ho held the position until 2010.
In 2017, Trump named Ho to the Fifth Circuit, widely regarded as the country’s most conservative appellate court. He was confirmed by the Senate and was sworn in by Thomas himself in a closed ceremony in 2018 at the Texas mansion of billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.
Since then, Ho has carved out a reputation as an unflagging extremist. In a lecture last year at a Heritage Foundation conference in Washington, D.C., he encouraged his judicial colleagues to avoid “fair-weather originalism,” and to steel themselves from the “harsh criticism” they could expect from “elites” displeased by their interpretation of the Constitution’s original meaning. “If you’re an originalist only when elites won’t be upset with you, if you’re an originalist only when it’s easy,” he said, “that’s not principled judging.”
In his first opinion on the bench, a 2018 dissent, he argued that all laws limiting donations to political candidates and campaigns violate the First Amendment. In 2019, he wrote a concurring opinion validating Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which subsequently went to the Supreme Court and resulted in the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
A Second Amendment absolutist, he penned another concurrence last year, upholding the right of individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders to own guns. The case, United States v. Rahimi, was argued in November 2023 and is currently before the Supreme Court.
Ho was also part of a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel last August that curtailed the use of the abortion pill mifepristone. The case, Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 24, and will have dramatic effects on the rights of women and pregnant people to reproductive freedom.
Outside of court, Ho has been an equally unflagging activist, writing law review articles and lecturing at law schools about the evils of “cancel culture.”
In 1993, Clarence Thomas told two of his law clerks that he planned to do his utmost to make the lives of liberals “miserable.” No doubt he has succeeded, perhaps beyond his wildest expectations. In any event, if Trump is reelected, Thomas will be able to rest assured that his legacy will live on with the appointment of James Ho, whom Trump named to his last Supreme Court shortlist in 2020, and, from all appearances, is auditioning to have his name called if the opportunity arises.
A legal clinic at University of Notre Dame has helped represent the school while its officials have maintained ties to right-wing Supreme Court justices.
Oklahoma's newly approved religious charter school, which proponents hope will serve as the basis of a legal test case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could alter the principle of separation of church and state, is being boosted by a number of right-wing groups with ties to Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, according to new reporting—including a legal clinic with links to some of the high court's most conservative justices.
As Common Dreams reported in July, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board earlier this year gave preliminary approval for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the country's first publicly funded religious school if it survives legal challenges. The school board also approved a contract with the institution in October.
Politico on Friday detailed groups that are aiding the effort to open St. Isidore, including a legal clinic at the University of Notre Dame that was announced shortly before Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed.
At the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Initiative (RLI), law professor Nicole Stelle Garnett is representing St. Isidore in a case before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which was initiated by state Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond. The state argues that the establishment of St. Isidore violates both the Oklahoma and U.S. constitutions; the state requires charters schools to be nonsectarian by statute.
Since representing the school, Garnett has also joined the board of the right-wing Federalist Society, which has ties to the Supreme Court's conservative justices and which has helped reshape the federal court system, pushing for the confirmations of far-right judges.
Garnett is close personal friends with Barrett and has hosted Justice Clarence Thomas at her home in South Bend, while Brendan Wilson, a corporate attorney who joined the clinic's legal team in 2021, purchased Barrett's home for nearly $1 million around the time that the RLI began advocating for right-wing causes at the Supreme Court by filing amicus briefs.
That real estate deal drew scrutiny from ethics watchdogs earlier this year, as reports surfaced of Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito accepting luxury trips and other financial gifts from Republican donors.
The RLI also announced in 2020 that its director, Stephanie Barclay, would take a leave of absence to serve as a clerk for another conservative Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch—during the same period that the clinic was working with St. Isidore.
In 2022, the clinic funded a trip to Rome for Alito.
Paul Collins, a legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Politico that St. Isidore's work with the Leo-linked RLI shows that "the Christian conservative legal movement... has its fingerprints all over what's going on in Oklahoma."
"They recognize the opportunity to get a state to fund a religious institution is a watershed moment," Collins told the outlet. "They have a very, very sympathetic audience at the Supreme Court. When you have that on the Supreme Court you're going to put a lot of resources into bringing these cases quickly."
A spokesperson for Leo declined to comment for Politico's article. A spokesperson for RLI declined to tell the outlet whether Barclay had been involved in work on behalf of St. Isidore before, during, or after she worked with Gorsuch, and whether Garnett and Wilson had discussed the school's case with any justices.
Alliance Defending Freedom, the right-wing group that has lobbied to curtail reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights through the courts, is representing the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, and counts among its financial benefactors the Donors Trust, a group that government watchdog Accountable.US called the "'Dark Money ATM' for Hate Groups" last month.
Leo's Judicial Education Project, which pushes for the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices and promoted views that deny the scientific consensus on climate change, has counted Donors Trust as its main beneficiary.
Peter Greene, a retired teacher and blogger who focuses on education issues, said the push for a publicly funded Christian school "has attracted all the usual Christianist power."
Changing the Supreme Court's interpretation of separation of church and state, said progressive news outlet The Tennessee Holler, "has always been their goal."