Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine could prevent federal agencies from issuing ambitious climate and wildlife rules, lawyers say.
It doesn’t even need to be ambitious. It just has to be ambiguous.
But what does “has to” mean anyways? The reality is motivated judge can rule pretty much anything as “ambiguous”