Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Security

Supreme Court Ruling Will Likely Cause Cyber Regulation Chaos (csoonline.com) 380

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: The US Supreme Court has issued a decision that could upend all federal cybersecurity regulations, moving ultimate regulatory approval to the courts and away from regulatory agencies. A host of likely lawsuits could gut the Biden administration's spate of cyber incident reporting requirements and other recent cyber regulatory actions. [...] While the Court's decision has the potential to weaken or substantially alter all federal agency cybersecurity requirements ever adopted, a series of cyber regulatory initiatives implemented over the past four years could become the particular focus of legal challenges. Parties who previously objected to these initiatives but were possibly reluctant to fight due to the Chevron deference will likely be encouraged to challenge these regulations.

Although all existing regulations are still in effect, the upshot for CISOs is almost certainly some degree of uncertainty as the legal challenges get underway. A host of conflicting decisions across the various judicial circuits in the US could lead to confusion in compliance programs until the smoke clears. CISOs should expect some court cases to water down or eliminate many existing cybersecurity regulatory requirements. A host of recently adopted cyber regulations will likely be challenged following the Court's ruling, but some recent regulations stand out as leading candidates for litigation. Among these are:

Supreme Court Ruling Will Likely Cause Cyber Regulation Chaos More | Reply

Supreme Court Ruling Will Likely Cause Cyber Regulation Chaos

Comments Filter:

  • You okay over there, America? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @12:48PM (#64597955) Homepage

    *glances over with a mix of sympathy and concern*

      • Yes. We're perfectly fine, This is just how people respond to not getting their way now. Somebody please tell everyone to calm the hysterics.

    • Re:You okay over there, America? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LazarusQLong ( 5486838 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:04PM (#64597997)
      No, we are not okay, our Judicial Branch seems to have been bought off by our corporations and now the 'people' are not protected at all (except the multimillionaires/billionaires)

      Regular folks are no longer able to discern whether or not any product is safe or likely to cause harm because, acting under the orders of those politicians that are owned by the corporations, and the corporations themselves, our Judicial Branch has just taken all of our 'regulatory' agencies and told them that they no longer have any power to, uh, regulate.

      Of course, MAGA people will cheer because their Liar in Chief will tell them to.

      • Re: You okay over there, America? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:47PM (#64598247)
        You dont get it. The Supreme Court is partly doing this in preparation of a second Trump presidency. They are actively transferring power from the executive branch to congress and the courts because the US population is losing its ability to distinguish between good leaders and bad, hence our upcoming re-election of a guy who encouraged an armed mob to trash the capital and hang the vice president, while the alternative is a guy who clearly has early-stage age onset dementia. They are turning the Oval Office into a padded room. Given the state of US voters maybe its for the best.
        • oh, I get it. I get that very well. And it angers me no end.

      • It's kinda hard to keep up with the ways we're getting forked as a country when paying any attention to the news is not worth the deleterious effects on the nervous system.

      • > our Judicial Branch seems to have been bought off by our corporations

        The funny thing about this is that the original Chevron case was so Chevron could evade environmental reviews [wikipedia.org] and Chevron won in the Supreme Court. The lower courts wanted to prohibit the EPA from changing definitions to let Chevron pollute more:

        > The D.C. Circuit ruled in the NRDC's favor in 1982. In an opinion written by U.S. circuit judge (and future Supreme Court justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EP

    • As others have answered in parallel, "no".

      Some of them have given additional details, so I don't need to do that here. However, I do want to say "thank you for your concern".
    • USA: "Yeah, this is fine. Actually, it's better this way because the constitution, something, something."

    • Schizophrenia. The legislators have decided, over and over, to grant the authority to regulatory agencies to decide on the fine details. But the one party that hates regulations, and often is in the minority, is sick of not getting their way, and finally have enough votes on the Supreme Court. So the court says essentially that if congress didn't provide the fine details the nobody else can fill them in, EVEN if congress allowed it in their original authorization. Meaning congress needs to be a microman

    • No, we're not (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:55PM (#64598287)
      Our courts just ruled Donald Trump is King. They granted him complete immunity from prosecution for any act while he's president while carving out exceptions in case a Democrat tried to use that power.

      Until that ruling is overturned we are one bad election away from a full on dictatorship. And Project 2025 lays out the plan for it. Meanwhile Trump just called for a military tribunal for one of his political opponents.

      No, we are not OK. Send help.

  • One one side of their mouth they are saying that executive power is unchecked and bad... and the other side they are saying that the president has complete immunity for official acts. Even when the initial executive power was based on actions (and inactions) of the legislature. Wonder what Seal Team 6 could do to Roberts' RV...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      One one side of their mouth they are saying that executive power is unchecked and bad... and the other side they are saying that the president has complete immunity for official acts. Even when the initial executive power was based on actions (and inactions) of the legislature. Wonder what Seal Team 6 could do to Roberts' RV...

      The Navy actually has posse comitatus regulations that would preclude such an act, as does the Army (and by extension, the Air Force).

      That said, the cynic in me says that the Supreme Court just gave Biden unconditional immunity for his job as commander in chief of the armed forces, and simultaneously eliminated the presumption of legality of cabinet-level decisions by the executive branch, including, presumably, the 2013 Secretary of Defense directive declaring it illegal to use the U.S. Marine Corps on U.S

      • I think Biden should have issued a public order for the assassination of justices who voted for presidential immunity, to take effect only after such immunity was ruled on and in effect.

        Instead, he's taken the high road of "I'm not going to abuse this power" and I guess he's going to have a rough time of it if Trump gets in because Trump won't hesitate to start settling scores. Honestly, I think Obama should be worried about his personal security - he's a black man who made fun of Trump - Trump is notoriou

        • Take your meds.

      • well, gee, what if Biden declared Posse Comitatus null and void? Or ordered the Secret Service (of course, then they would need renaming to the Praetorian Guard...) to feed Trump into a woodchipper, feet first, with tourniquets at the top of his thighs so he doesn't bleed out too fast? I'd pay to see that. Probably buy it on blue ray.
    • as far as I can tell, everyone is talking about immunity for official acts, when what should be discussed is is fomenting an insurrection ever a legitimate official act? Someone took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, then went on to try to dismantle the Constitution at every turn.
      • Yes. It is now -- in fact -- back to the lower courts to decide which actions were and were not official.

      • Official acts are vague enough that they're ultimately whatever the courts say they are... which I suspect will vary based on your political affiliation.

        • >Official acts are vague enough that they're ultimately whatever the courts say they are... which I suspect will vary based on your political affiliation.

          No they are not, official acts are only those acts which are authorized by statute. That is why when judges have in the past, taken bribes to imprison kids for cash, or decided to arrest people outside their courtroom, they are held responsible for exceeding their jurisdiction of deciding a dispute between two parties in a suit.

    • One one side of their mouth they are saying that executive power is unchecked and bad... and the other side they are saying that the president has complete immunity for official acts.

      No conflict whatsoever.

      "executive power is unchecked and bad" (Actually: The courts have been letting the executive take over their own job of deciding what the law means and of course they decided it means they can do all sorts of stuff and a giant pile has accumulated.) So it must be brought under control. (The courts hav

    • Leftists are delusional as always.

      > supreme court says:
      > hey you guys shouldn't weaponize the legal system to attack your opponents for policy decisions you disagree with.

      > leftists think they said:
      > So what you really mean, is we can drone our political opponents because we disagree with their policy decisions

  • Nope (Score:3, Funny)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:03PM (#64597995)

    He's free to ignore the court and face no repercussions because it's an official act.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      He's free to ignore the court and face no repercussions because it's an official act.

      No, administrative bureaucrats no longer have such power. Now Congress has to define the scope of the power they have and the Courts can provide oversight. They days of bureaucrats being above the law are over.

      • We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not deci

        • >Nope. Clearly immune from "official acts" whatever those might be.

          Those acts which are authorized by statute, perhaps if you wanted to learn what "official acts" are, you should learn some constitutional law.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )
          Sorry, I didn't realize you changed the topic to a different supreme court ruling. :-)

          Regarding this other ruling you are bringing up ...

          The president may not be criminally charged for official acts, but he may still be impeach and removed from office.

          And official acts would be those that fall under the powers granted to the president by the constitution.

  • Constitutions says courts interpret law (Score:5, Informative)

    by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:06PM (#64598011)
    The US Constitution says that the courts have the role of interpreting the law. Not the executive department's bureaucrats.The latter is one branch of government usurping the powers of another. We have separation of powers. Congress writes to laws. The Executive branch implements the laws. The Judicial branch interprets the law and/or determines Constitutionality.

    People are ignoring the real problem. Its Congress writing vague, unclear laws. Congress merely needs to CLEARLY define the scope of their authority that they are delegating to the bureaucrats. With clear delegation of authority the courts do not need to interpret anything. This ruling does not interfere with subject matter experts making appropriate decisions, Congress merely needs to state that they are empowered to do so.

    Currently, Congress writes something unclear, and bureaucrats get to make up what powers they have. And courts were formerly instructed to defer to whatever they "make up". That's centralization of power, not only that but centralizing it in the the unelected and the uncomfirmed, possibly political appoinments. Better to go back to separation of powers.
    • You're right, but I would push back on the idea that it's unclear laws. The examples of regulations that face a challenge under the new ruling include several where the bureaucracy used a creative interpretation of their own mandate from Congress to expand their authority. For example:

      Why should the SEC require companies to disclose material cybersecurity incidents within 4 days of determining materiality when the the Securities and Securities Exchange Acts say nothing about cybersecurity?

      Why shou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nadass ( 3963991 )
      The above should get mod +1 for Informative.

      This is exactly the biggest root cause (unclear legislation) yet the SCOTUS has been writing politically-entwined opinions that does not reinforce this basic set of boundaries. SCOTUS should clarify the issues rather than going off along election-year talking points.

      (This comment should probably not get moderated. Ha.)

    • The US Constitution says that the courts have the role of interpreting the law.

      Where does it say that?

      • Article III says the judicial power rests on the supreme court. If you need help understanding what judicial power is then I suggest looking it up in a dictionary. You literally can not have a judicial branch which doesn't interpret the law. That is their whole purpose. It is literally the reason a judiciary exists. You can't rule on a fact of law without interpreting what that law is saying.

    • Feel free to try and quote chapter and verse, you can't because the constitution doesn't say that. It says Congress Makes the Laws, which allows Congress to delegate authority. Once Congress does that the Courts have to obey that authority because (and I can't emphasize this enough) it's the fucking law

      You're making excuses because you think the outcome of this will benefit you somehow. It won't. If you were wealthy enough that it could you wouldn't be wasting your time posting to /.. You'd be banging a

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Chevron deference WAS the courts interpreting the law. The courts understood that good government requires expertise that that requires deferring to experts. That was the entire point, good judgement requires knowledge that judges cannot consistently have.

      What has happened has nothing to do with the court reclaiming anything, it has to do with the court reserving power for itself to the benefit of the rich and the detriment of the people.

      "People are ignoring the real problem. It's Congress writing vague,

  • Maybe now Congress... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:06PM (#64598013) Homepage Journal
    ... will have to actually do its job and legislate instead of sitting back and letting unelected federal agencies make stuff up on a whim to support whatever behind-closed-doors policies someone makes up, while the Congresscritters pay a lot of lip service to things without actually doing anything so they can avoid taking an actual recorded stand and being bounced at the next election. Honest Political Ad [youtube.com].

    • There's a reason those agencies exist and hold regulatory power without the courts being involved.

      The courts aren't necessary, and their processes are overly burdonsome making them slow and expensive. A regulatory agency can get the job done faster for less money... and the courts can be a fallback for if and when they get out of line.

      • Re:Maybe now Congress... (Score:4, Informative)

        by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:15PM (#64598057)

        Yes, the reason is Congress refuses to do their job and has delegated their government role (to create laws) to agencies operating under the executive branch.

        The USSC has ruled Congress must do their own job not hide from it.

        What's the issue?

      • >The courts aren't necessary, and their processes are overly burdonsome making them slow and expensive.

        Says the neo-marxist before he gets sent to the Gulag.

        We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

      • There's a reason those agencies exist and hold regulatory power without the courts being involved.

        They regulatory authority they hold is only the authority granted by Congress. Congress has the authority to write laws, not the Executive department. Congress merely needs to be clear as to what authority is being delegated. Bureaucrats can no longer make up their own authority. Nor are they immune from oversight by the courts, the courts formerly being instructed to defer.

        The courts aren't necessary, and their processes are overly burdonsome making them slow and expensive. A regulatory agency can get the job done faster for less money... and the courts can be a fallback for if and when they get out of line.

        The courts are not involved, no more than before. They only get involved if someone says regulators are out of line, ie someone makes a

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Wait until they go after OSHA https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com] and the blue collar MAGA crowd starts losing limbs or getting killed on the job. But I'm sure they will blame Obama.

    • 535 some odd people cannot possibly write every single thing into the law. So they do this crazy thing called delegation. Do you expect Nancy Pelosi & Mike Johnson to patrol your streets? No, they delegate authority to police. This is (was) the same damn thing.

      The Constitution allows Congress to delegate authority. They're not "interpreting law" they're implementing it.

      The courts can now override Congress any time they want. Which is great if you're an extremist because it's much easier to take

  • They don't control the agencies, Trump failed to capture them all, but they've successfully taken over the judicial system... into which they will gather what additional power they can.

    It will not end well, for them or anyone else. They're going to do all the things they claim are being done to them, and eventually, when the system is even more completely broken than it is now, people will finally accept it and react.

    There's no road in the US that leads to a White Christian Theocracy with everyone just sit

    • I am not sure that that is true. I think that White Christians still outnumber all the other demographics is the USA... and I believe that they are also the ones who own the most weapons. I know for damn sure that they are the ones most likely to kill people who are other than white/christian if it suits them.

      I am speaking of them in the largest sense, I imagine that there are plenty of good white people and good Christians, just in general, whenever you read of a young black/asian youth getting shot and

      • While both whites and self-identified Christians are in the majority in the US (over 60% for both categories), the Venn diagram isn't a perfect circle. I suspect brown Christians will eventually find a reason not to ally with white supremacists and vice-versa.

        Beyond that, most ammosexuals do seem to be white males convinced they're oppressed but I doubt your average comfortable middle class guy is going to actually fight when it comes to it, though. They'll want someone else to do it. The people they tar

        • the issue I see, is not that the 'average' white guy will fight, but rather that the former soldiers/marines will almost all be on the side of the White Christians. I am a former soldier, but not christian for some decades. I, of course, am old, fat and lazy (ugly and bald too, but those are not germane to this discussion) You get a couple of million of those former marines and soldiers together and, presuming the military is stuck fighting themselves, you will have a serious force to be reckoned with.
    • Trump failed to 'capture' them all because some of us (federal employee here) that recall that our oath of office is to Support and Defend the Constitution, we are not beholden to obey illegal orders or ignore orders that we deem are illegal just because the President said it.

      I have this argument all the time with TrumpTards, they seem to think that we all owe fealty to Him, not just any president, just Trump. No, our oath of office is:

      “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and

    • > White Christian Theocracy

      Since when have we EVER had a theocracy (look up the words you use), and what makes you think that all of a sudden the magic sky daddy believers are going to convince more people to side with their schizophrenic fantasies, you realize that even during the Scopes trial a hundred years ago, the decision was VERY unpopular, and only possible because the judge put his thumb on the scale with regards to the first amendment.

  • Once you get the lower courts packed with people who legislate from the bench, as the Supreme Court is doing, you can do away with all those nasty regulations Congress has empowered agencies with. Just judge shop to find one who has no idea about the regulations and get them to weigh in rather than the agency which has subject matter experts.

    Not only that, but by having a judge decide, the case can be drug out for years or decades until the government finally gives up, costing the taxpayers. Such as

    • > Once you get the lower courts packed with people who legislate from the bench, as the Supreme Court is doing

      What the fuck are you going on about, The decisions of the Supreme court are literally reversing "legislating from the bench" that had accrued from the 60's onwards, because it is inherently an unstable way of doing things. That includes alot of things that leftists would actually care about, if only they weren't addicted to CNN rage bait such as .... unanimous jury verdicts, civil forfeiture, go

  • I never figured so much of the regulatory framework we depend on in the US was so fragile that a court ruling could take it down.

    What's next, the FAA losing its authority? Will we have planes coming crashing down on our cities multiple times a year?

    How do we even fix this? Congress is useless and the executive branch's hands are tied. And if Trump wins in November it'll just get worse because he doesn't care about anyone.

    • Nothing needs fixing. Those agencies operate under the executive branch and ate in effect making laws via regulation.

      The role of law making is reserved for the Congress. They have delegated their role and authority to the Executive branch via agencies which have no Constitutional existence.

      Order has been restored, not destroyed.

      Congress needs to get back to doing what they exist for: making laws, not delegating their role to the Executive.

    • No if Trump wins this ruling will limit his powers. This is a win we do not want a strong executive, we don't need a King.

    • I never figured so much of the regulatory framework we depend on in the US was so fragile that a court ruling could take it down.

      What's next, the FAA losing its authority? Will we have planes coming crashing down on our cities multiple times a year?

      How do we even fix this? Congress is useless and the executive branch's hands are tied. And if Trump wins in November it'll just get worse because he doesn't care about anyone.

      Regulation gets in the way of big business. You don't make money by following safe practices or installing the correct number of fasteners in an airplane door. You make money by any means necessary. If some people die in the process, oh well. Guess they should have picked a safer airplane manufacturer or safer steel mill to work in.

      Trump is the republicans wet dream. He proved to be there useful idiot. Look how he stacked the courts and how many federal judges he appointed. You hear about someone getting pr

    • gee, you mean the regulatory agency that has regulations on how an aircraft should be made so that it is safe? Gee, sounds like that department is definitely overstepping its remit (he said sarcastically) we should close it down and fire all its employees, that'd save the government a ton of money, wouldn't it? I imagine we could do the same with all the other departments except for the DoD, that'd cut our budget by about 75%. Awesome.

      • My province goes conservative (Canadian flavour) once in a while, and in my youth our conservatives were in power and decided regulating drinking water was too expensive.

        People died from 'treated' water they trusted their municipalities were handling responsibly.

        It was not the first time, it was not the last. They're not big on learning from history, they just react to whatever the fear and rage of the moment is.

        • >My province goes conservative (Canadian flavour) once in a while

          No wonder your answers are so ignorant, you're a Canadian who only pretends to know how our government works.

          >People died from 'treated' water they trusted their municipalities were handling responsibly.

          Meanwhile people died in Flint Michigan from water that WAS regulated.

          You mentioned screws on doors, but yet that also WAS regulated.

          What did the regulations do, when there aren't people competent to exercise them, because we mandate push

    • > What's next, the FAA losing its authority? Will we have planes coming crashing down on our cities multiple times a year?

      You either need to improve your reading comprehension or you need to take your meds.

      Nowhere did the decision say the FAA loses its authority to enforce laws, it just cant make up its own laws, or reinterpret the laws as it suits them.

      If you want your congressmen to pass laws that you want, you need to either call them, or vote for someone else who will.

  • The article is incoherent (Score:5, Informative)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:16PM (#64598061) Journal

    "In Loper, the Supreme Court ruled that courts — not regulatory agencies — are the ultimate arbiters of what governing congressional law says, casting into doubt thousands of federal regulations affecting virtually all aspects of society, from environmental safety to financial fraud."

    This is incoherent. Why yes, the Supreme Court is the "ultimate arbiter" of what the law says. Why is that? Because that's what the US Constitution grants in Article III:

    "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States"

    Forty years ago, this Constitutional provision was turned on its head and the agencies -- who were parties to the case! -- where given a default judgment regardless of circumstances. It was this abnegation of the role of the Courts that has finally been course-corrected.

    • or they used to. Now the Supreme Court can literally veto any law they want.

      Chevron was about DELEGATION. Congress can't possibly close every nasty little loophole, and moreover judges aren't supposed to be able to override congress just because they feel like it.

      Now they can. Now the Courts can strike down whatever they don't like. You've got 6 people in charge of America, and 1 election between them and absolute power.

  • I keep seeing claims this ruling gives the courts more power but that's not the case. It does limit the Executive branch from just making up rules because they are the "experts" but Congress could actually do something and make clear statutes. Limiting the Executive branch is a good thing, particular if we sendup with another Trump presidency.

    • The ruling in question here states that, when a law is vague, that it is up to the courts to decide what Congress meant when they passed this law.

      Previously, courts could defer to the executive branch. This ruling says, they can no longer do that.

      The clearest solution to this problem is *stop passing purposefully vague laws*.

      The dirty secret of congress is THEY LIKE VAGUE LAWS because it allows them to change on-a-whim what the law means via regulation, which is much easier to do than passing laws. However,

  • Now corporations can't just capture the regulatory agencies to put up barriers to entry, give themselves indemnity for the harm they do, and mandate the use of their products and services. Now, the lawmakers have to put their names onto laws to make this happen, which is a win for transparency and democracy—we can vote out the lawmakers that support this crony capitalism, but we can't vote out the bureaucrats.

    • Precisely.

    • It's much cheaper now. Corporations just have to pay gratuities to the judge when the case goes to court.

      • Your straw-man is illogical. For one, it would be cheaper to have the system rigged for you than to have to pay every time it goes to court; there's just fewer people to bribe in the bureaucratic version. Secondly, corporations being constantly taken to court is a PR nightmare, which would cost them business; it looks much better for them if they get to hide behind the captured regulators.

  • Obviously, some crackers need to hack SCOTUS's system, and dox the right-wing justices.

    Want to see how fast they revise their opinion?

  • Ridiculous histrionics (Score:5, Informative)

    by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:37PM (#64598201)

    What a dumb take. How is "all existing regulations are still in effect" and applying judicial scrutiny to relatively recent regulations ("initiatives implemented over the past four years") in a way that doesn't invalidate anyone's existing compliance ("water down or eliminate many existing cybersecurity regulatory requirements") equivalent to "chaos"? Is OP expecting citizens rioting in the streets if memo 2434-a(c) is eventually reduced in scope by a months long federal court proceeding?

    Chevron was the real source of chaos. It was utterly impossible to know what the laws were because agencies were completely free to make them up as they went along and courts were required to assume that whatever authority they claimed to have they did have. E.,g here's a Slashdot article from last year [slashdot.org] reporting on how Coinbase was literally begging for the SEC to issue crypto rules. They just wanted to know what regulations were so they could comply with them. SEC: "Lol, no, not telling. Gonna punish you for breaking whatever we come up with, though."

    Fyi the actual suit that brought Chevron under scrutiny was a small fishing business that was in threat of going under because they were being charged $700/day to be monitored for compliance. "Well, that's just the rules pay your taxes" right? Except nothing was every legally passed either in terms of the fee being established or the agency having right to assess fees in that way. They just decided out of the blue that they could balance their budget that way, and under Chevron courts were instructed to say "well if the agencies decides that's the rule then you just assume that they're right."

    What you can expect now is still courts deferring to technical experts over matters of technical expertise, and agencies still exercising their legally delegated authority as they see fit. Congress can delegate more authority to them as well. Agencies just don't get automatic deference in their own interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority.

    The fact the administrators are not able to continue assuming to themselves the powers of all three branches of government to rule as they see fit is not "chaos".

  • If there is ambiguity as to whether or not technocrats have authority to do something what is wrong with requesting congress pass amended laws to clarify the authorization? I'm not particularly fond of technocratic rule nor the obvious conflict of interest in letting agencies make impartial judgements.

    I've noticed a number of people making statements this prevents technocrats from regulating industries when it does no such thing. It is only concerned where grant of authority is ambiguous.

  • What we are seeing is a step toward tyranny where a small group of unelected officials control decisions and tools of self-government are enfeebled. It is the natural result of oligarchy. I think it is informative to understand that in that last 50 years only two people have been appointed to the court who did not attend either Yale or Harvard law schools. Those schools are almost entirely focused on training lawyers who serve corporations. It is hard to find any decisions that empower self-government and

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close